Doug Coleman wrote:
> How about just escaping class names all the time?
>
> TUPLE: foo a b ;
> \ foo new
>
> That way it's clear that foo will not execute as a word and we won't
> have to generate any new sytnax like Foo or foo%.
>
> : foo "lol" throw ;
>
> Now we original usage of foo will still work.
>
> In general, I prefer this kind of preventative coding. You could do
> the same for symbols -- I know it's redundant, but I love that the
> code is robust if the symbol name is ever used as a word name and I
> don't mind reading an extra backslash if it makes code easier to
> change in the future.
I agree with your analysis. I.e. given the current situation, it's good to be
consistent and always quote your class.
However, always using '\' isn't a substitute for a real convention. Seeing a
backslash doesn't necessarily signify a class name, which is the point of a
naming convention.
> I don't want to have "syntax creep" because it would take away from Factor's
> simplicity.
I wouldn't call a naming convention syntax, because it isn't enforced. An
example of syntax creep is when '<' became an invalid slot name. Syntax is
like authority, it's sometimes necessary but it should be justified. The
latter example was justified.
As far as a naming convention affecting the simplicity of the language itself,
I have to defer to Perlis:
Symmetry is a complexity-reducing concept; seek it everywhere
I've always considered consistency to be a form of symmetry.
Ed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Factor-talk mailing list
Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
