Re: ? 1={}, is there really any other interpretation?
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> Some reasons why it should be @< to specify a sequence op rather than
> :< to specify an atomic op:
But it doesn't matter at this point what it *should* be because we have to deal
with the way that it is and has been for years & years. To go changing the way
something so intrinsic to the language works at this point is madness because of
the massive of amount of code it will break. So you have to add something new to
the language, not alter the stuff that is there already. Unless you give your
new language a new name and totally branch off.
> 1) Over 99.95% of existing operator usage is atomic.
Sez you. In my code, it is at least 60-40 in favor of sequences.
> 3) :-ops add to rather than decrease (newbie) confusion.
> return name="pete" is the natural thing to type.
> replacing "use equal()" with "use :=" is less than helpful.
> Eg name@="pete" makes it clear I want lots of 1s and 0s.
> 4) ":=" looks very misleading to this particular ex-Pascal student.
Probably so, but again it is too late to do anything about that and have the
result still be something called Euphoria. Breaking half of the Eu code in
existence is not exactly going to lessen confusion.
I'm all for having as much flexibility as possible (whereas some of you seem to
actually want to get rid of existing functionality just because you don't happen
to use it personally) and adding whatever needs to be added, but just don't go
breaking code to do it just so it looks prettier to your eyes.
For instance, I'd love to see a conditional operator added, but since that would
be primarily used as a sequence op, I probably won't get any support on that...
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
