On Sep 28, 10:04 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote: > The gist of the first part of that argument is that this, which is > legal scala code: > > user getAccount accountName isEnabled > > is indicative of a bad language. Its not possible to tell if this is > a golfed version of: user.getAccount().accountName().isEnabled(), or: > user.getAccount(accountName).isEnabled().
It's not possible? If you don't know the language it's not possible, I guess. If you don't know the language it's not possible to know what all those dots and parentheses are doing either. > Trying to argue that the > distinction is irrelevant Strawman safely dispatched. > If for whatever reason the "getAccount" > method becomes zero-args, and returns an object that has a > "accountName" method, then the meaning of "user getAccount accountName > isEnabled" would change significantly. Yes, it changes to "this code no longer compiles because it doesn't parse." I think you should try learning the language. It would lend an air of authority to your ideas which is presently lacking. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
