Re: 1={}, is there really any other interpretation
Matt Lewis wrote:
>
> I think I'm violently allergic to this (':' or '@') syntax.
>
I know exactly what you mean.
Whereas I think I can live with @ splattered all over 0.05% of my code, the same
is not so with : all over the other 99.95%.
Personally I favour the sq_eq() approach, but evidently there has been a fair
showing of some rather deep-rooted opposition. For that matter it does not deeply
bother me that I have to use "equal()" instead of "=", hence the reaction against
"sq_eq()", "sq_add()", etc basically rather stuns me.
While I am not specifically against "==", it only addresses a very small part of
the fundamental problem, sadly the only thing I have shown a decent example for.
While the implicit sequence_op for "+" on the face of it seems fine, migrating
that implicitness over to "=", "<=", etc and "and", "or", etc, albeit in a
consistent manner, creates several problems.
There is of course no NEED to do any of this (a point many seem to miss); it
will come at some cost; it boils down to elegance, readability, lack of surprise
(especially from the newbie point of view), consistency, and last but not least
short-circuit in all expressions.
Regards,
Pete
PS My apologies to all for just being overall bad at expressing the case for
doing this, but my opening salvo on this thread did warn that would be so.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
