On 9/15/06, Jason Grossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> This feature makes the language more complicated, and so makes code
> >> harder to read.  To understand an if-statement that has an end
> >> condition, I now have to remember to check not only its if-condition
> >> but also the end-condition.  I expect that more bugs will occur from
> >> forgetting to check this, than the bugs avoided by it.
> >
> > No you don't. You don't have to change a single line of code. You
> > simply have the _option_ of explicitly stating what a specific end
> > block ends. In a 100-line code block that is nested five levels, this
> > can be a very nice memory aid. You have always had the option of using
> > something like
>
> Aren't you two talking at cross purposes here?  The first person's
> assertion is that the new feature makes things harder to READ.  The
> second person is pointing out that the new syntax shows that it
> doesn't make code harder to WRITE, since we have the option of not
> using it.  Seems to me that both of you are right, but not (at this
> point in time) talking about the same thing.

Rereading Philips post, I am not 100% sure what he meant. I may have
misunderstood what he was trying to say. A restatement is welcome.

>
> The fact remains that some people will use the new syntax if it's
> there, while other people won't.  So, if there's a danger of that
> making code harder to read then it's an issue we should take seriously.

>From that point of view, I would agree. I've simply seen this syntax
as obvious enough that you wouldn't even consider it a new syntax,
just a simple extention to what's already there that is self
explaining. But the number of comments to my original mail clearly
shows that there is nothing self-explaining about this feature, so I
may be wrong here.

>
> Personally, I think that we should not have this new feature in a
> simple scripting language.  I would find it useful, hypothetically,
> in a full-blown language in one expects to code very complicated
> algorithms.  In that hypothetical case, one could encourage people to
> use the new syntax all the time.  But in a simple shell language,
> obviously a lot of people (certainly me) would mostly use the old
> syntax.  And then when I was reading code which used the new syntax,
> not being used to it, I'd get confused.  So I'd prefer to keep things
> as they are, with just the one block ending, "end".  KISS.

That is a valid point.

>
> Jason
>


-- 
Axel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Fish-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users

Reply via email to