Hi Ian, I've noticed that the mailing list settings got updated. Thanks! On Nov 27, 2007 5:38 PM, Ian Piumarta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think whichever makes the expression of intent the clearest is the > one to use in any given situation. That it might have to come with > copious comments, flashing red 'danger bars' in the editor, or > whatever, is a detail for the UI and tools to get right.
I hope there will never be flashing red "danger bars". :) > Clarity can be in the eye of the writer or the reader, so an ideal > solution might employ bijections between visual/editable > representation and stored semantic structures throughout the > programming tools. If X wants to write with conventional arithmetic > precedence, import (or write) the two or three lines of syntax > declaration that makes certain binary operators behave that way. If > Y wants to read the code without operator precedence, the underlying > structures are converted (in the absence of precedence modifications) > with the operators appearing in a different order, possibly > parenthesised. I can see how this could rapidly break down into > chaos and confusion, but before it's abandoned I think someone (or > several people) should make serious attempts to find a practical and > satisfying solution. It's a really difficult problem. I could imagine that if we offered plugins for code style (i.e., you don't style the code freely, but rely on the IDE to do it) we could extend those plugins to support different precedence rules. That way, each programmer could individually pick the precedence rules and code style he likes. Could be worth a try, but it could still cause confusion if you see code on other people's computers or have to use someone else's computer, for example. > In the meantime: given that the object system was created to > eliminate C(++), and the message syntax was created to keep me sane, > and I can never remember the traditional (C or similar) precedence > rules without a huge poster on my wall and lots of redundant > parentheses to be 101% sure the compiler understands them too, I have > to side with the three-level 'message-passing' precedence rules. > But, with the promise that it will be trivial for anyone to change > the way any particular selectors are parsed in the very near future. I think that the absolute majority of programmers works with a language that has C-like syntax or at least math precedence. I doubt that they want to re-learn their habits just because a minority thinks it's better. IMHO, the default behavior should match what most people are already used to (and thus probably expect), so adoption isn't hindered too much. Bye, Waldemar Kornewald _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
