On 2/5/07, Ulf Norell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 3, 2007, at 6:35 AM, Douglas Philips wrote:
> Well, if we're going to bring personal points of view in, it highly
> pisses me off that in a construct such as:
> ( expr ,
> expr ,
> expr ,
> expr ,
> expr ,
> )
> I have to be vigila
On 2007 Feb 5, at 6:13 AM, Ulf Norell wrote:
How about instead writing
( expr
, expr
, expr
, expr
, expr
)
The only extra work is when inserting an element at the beginning,
but you have the same problem in your example.
This a coding style issue. My point was that the syntax should not b
On Feb 3, 2007, at 6:35 AM, Douglas Philips wrote:
Well, if we're going to bring personal points of view in, it highly
pisses me off that in a construct such as:
( expr ,
expr ,
expr ,
expr ,
expr ,
)
I have to be vigilant to remove that trailing comma when it is in
_no way_ ambiguo
On 2/3/07, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, but when I said "error" I meant "error with respect to the
intentions of the programmer" not "syntax error detected by the compiler".
The problem with your proposal is that if optional trailing commas were
allowed, if *I* wrote:
(
On 2007 Feb 2, at 11:17 PM, Kirsten Chevalier indited:
You just highlighted the inconsistency:
You refer to "import lists"... you appear to think of the
import
syntax _as a list_,
and it is precisely that mental processing where the inconsistency
hits/grates.
If it is an "import" _list
Douglas Philips wrote:
On 2007 Feb 3, at 2:55 AM, Brian Hulley indited:
I know, I find the need to manually delete and insert commas
extremely tedious as well. This is why I proposed:
...
I like that. (I haven't done enough analysis on the layout part of
the grammar to personally make sure it
On 2007 Feb 3, at 2:55 AM, Brian Hulley indited:
Of course, but when I said "error" I meant "error with respect to
the intentions of the programmer" not "syntax error detected by the
compiler". The problem with your proposal is that if optional
trailing commas were allowed, if *I* wrote:
Douglas Philips wrote:
On 2007 Feb 2, at 11:25 PM, Brian Hulley indited:
Apart from the extra possibility for errors (yes I understood that
you'd define it to not be an error but this doesn't change the fact
that for people who always wrote their tuples using the normal
mathematical convention n
On 2007 Feb 2, at 11:25 PM, Brian Hulley indited:
Apart from the extra possibility for errors (yes I understood that
you'd define it to not be an error but this doesn't change the fact
that for people who always wrote their tuples using the normal
mathematical convention not using an optiona
Douglas Philips wrote:
On 2007 Feb 2, at 1:03 PM, Neil Mitchell indited:
Personally I'd make the rule that trailing commas are never allowed,
anywhere, but I do see an argument for adding them to import lists.
You just highlighted the inconsistency:
You refer to "import lists"... you appear to
On 2/2/07, Douglas Philips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2007 Feb 2, at 1:03 PM, Neil Mitchell indited:
> An import list is not a value, you can't examine whats in the list,
> you can't enumerate it etc. As such, it doesn't really matter how many
> elements are in there, the important thing is wh
On 2007 Feb 2, at 1:03 PM, Neil Mitchell indited:
The argument that a trailing comma "means" "the programmer forgot the
last item" in a list / tuple is
inconsistent with the deliberately explicit permissiveness of a
trailing comma in the import / export lists.
In the import / export lists such a
Hi
The argument that a trailing comma "means" "the programmer forgot the
last item" in a list / tuple is
inconsistent with the deliberately explicit permissiveness of a
trailing comma in the import / export lists.
In the import / export lists such a trailing comma does not mean
"programmer forgo
On 2/2/07, Kirsten Chevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the other hand, with constant lists and tuples, you're probably not
> going to frequently edit the same constant list value. Am I missing
> something?
Sometimes people maintain static configuration items and the like in lists.
I've cer
On 2/2/07, Douglas Philips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmmm...stated another way:
I am proposing that the list and tuple syntax change to be consistent
with the import and export syntax.
The argument that a trailing comma "means" "the programmer forgot the
last item" in a list / tuple is
inconsist
On 2007 Feb 2, at 12:13 PM, Kirsten Chevalier inquired:
On 2/2/07, Douglas Philips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I assert that the trailing comma is a feature, not a programmer
forgetting "the last element", and that this
is already explicitly allowed, as per the syntax fragments already
quoted, r
On 2/2/07, Douglas Philips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I assert that the trailing comma is a feature, not a programmer
forgetting "the last element", and that this
is already explicitly allowed, as per the syntax fragments already
quoted, repeated here for convenience:
-- from: http://www.haskell
On 2007 Feb 2, at 11:32 AM, Brian Hulley wrote:
Douglas Philips wrote:
What would be the proper way to propose that:
( exp1 , ... , expk ) (tuple, k>=2)
[ exp1 , ... , expk ] (list, k>=1)
be amended to:
( exp1 , ... , expk [ , ] ) (tuple, k>=2)
[ exp1 , ... , expk [ , ] ] (list, k>=1)
I th
On 2 Feb, 2007, at 16:55 , Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Douglas Philips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would be the proper way to propose that:
| ( exp1 , ... , expk ) (tuple, k>=2)
| [ exp1 , ... , expk ] (list, k>=1)
be amended to:
| ( exp1 , ... , expk [
Douglas Philips wrote:
What would be the proper way to propose that:
( exp1 , ... , expk ) (tuple, k>=2)
[ exp1 , ... , expk ] (list, k>=1)
be amended to:
( exp1 , ... , expk [ , ] ) (tuple, k>=2)
[ exp1 , ... , expk [ , ] ] (list, k>=1)
I think a problem with the above proposal is that by a
Douglas Philips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would be the proper way to propose that:
> | ( exp1 , ... , expk ) (tuple, k>=2)
> | [ exp1 , ... , expk ] (list, k>=1)
> be amended to:
> | ( exp1 , ... , expk [ , ] ) (tuple, k>=2)
> | [ exp1 , ..
21 matches
Mail list logo
