Re: mainly syntax
At 06:50 PM 2/18/98 -0500, Robert Craig wrote:
>I was hoping to stay out of these syntax discussions
>because I'm trying to get the 2.0 beta out soon, but
>you guys have sucked me into it 
>
> <SKIPPED>
> x[a..length(x)]
>
>A couple of years ago I almost went ahead and
>implemented the thing Pete recently suggested:
> x[a..]
>i.e., leave off the second index of the slice and it means
>"length(x)" by default. I went a step further and thought
>that
> x[..b] should mean x[1..b]
>Then I got tired of the whole idea - why can't someone
>type in "1"? Isn't 1..b going to be more readable and only
>*one more keystroke?* I moved on to other things.
>
I don't like the "x[1..]" thing, and x[1..-1] strikes me as pretty bad
also, but it looks to me like there is at least a little bit of consensus
on the list about adding the x[1..end] form, like in PP, to the built-in
parts of Euphoria. That I heartily agree with. Using "end" in that
particular place is slightly easier to type and MUCH clearer.
No, scrap the "slightly"; some guys have been using examples like
x[1..length(x)]
to demonstrate how it's not really that hard to type the function call
'length(x)' but that's not the problem; the problem is typing something like
cur_buf = storage_buf[10..length(storage_buf)]
over and over. Yes, I can predict the comments of Real Programmers about
following book recommendations too much and using over-long variable names,
but jeez . . . not *everything* can have a one-letter identifier! Well, it
can (26 of'em, anyway), but any non-trivial program written that way better
have a butt-load of comments if the programmer following you is to have the
slightest chance of maintaining your code without developing a serious
drinking habit.
Besides, it's not necessarily *your* code you need to worry about; suppose
you download some code that works well, but when you take a look at it, it
turns out the coder was in favor of sentences rather than names; would you
rather have to look at
current_editing_buffer =
or
current_editing_buffer = permanent_storage_buffer[10..end]
Still irritatingly overlong, but as someone else said, every little bit
helps (as long as it's clear).
Anyway, back to the point; I'm strongly in favor of the x[1..end] form,
and I hope enough others are to persuade Mr. Craig to think about it
putting it in another release down the line. However, I know nothing about
the guts of an interpreter (or compiler); would that be a Bad Thing to try
to add to the built-ins, in light of 'end' already being rather extensively
used in the block constructs?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
J. Craig Gilbert
cgilbert at mc.peachnet.edu
"Positing infinity, the rest is easy."
Roger Zelazny, in
'Creatures of Light and Darkness'
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
