Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 23/10/2009 18:29, bearophile wrote:Yigal Chripun:Ranges are already part of the compiler because of foreach, can we also add language support for Range literals?In both iota and other possible implementations I'd like the arguments used by Python range/xrange, they are optimal, and better than the currently ones used by iota. And being ranges lazy and eager (strict) so common, I may want both versions, so I don't need array(iota(...)) (all this is present in my dlibs). What about xiota for the lazy version? Or maybe aiota for the eager version? :-) Bye, bearophileHell no. This is why I hate certain programming languages. if you are trying to obfuscate the language than why not just define: rtqfrdsg and fdkjtkf as the function names?names are important and they must be readable (in English. latin/greek/hindu/klingon/etc are not accepted). I don't care if I need to type ten letters instead of just five if later on I can understand immediately what the code does instead of spending half an hour reading the (outdated) documentation if I even bothered to write one.
Note that both "iota" and "in situ" are in the "Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary". Here are their definitions:
"in situ" is used to describe something that remains in its original or appropriate place while work is done on it.
"iota" An iota of something is an extremely small amount of it.Therefore, both should be considered acceptable English words. However whereas "inSitu" says exactly what it means, I'm not so sure about "iota"
Jerome
PS: For those who don't know, the Collins Cobuild is special in that
it is built using statistics on word usage. They choose which words
to include based on how frequently those words are used in common
English.
-- mailto:jeber...@free.fr http://jeberger.free.fr Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
