From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Subject: Re: Quantified expressions: no support for restriction predicates
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2012-04-30T08:57:11-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <19032073.760.1335801431421.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlt11> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <796413.773.1335612600942.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbai3>
On Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:30:00 AM UTC-7, phil.c...@lineone.net wrote:
>
> Drat. I knew about the parentheses. (Personally, I would have liked parentheses to be required only when there is a syntactic ambiguity. I suppose that is so often, you may as well have them all the time.)
I have a vague memory of seeing code like this in a textbook, a long time ago. I think it was in some version of Algol:
if if if if A then B else C then D else E then F else G then
...
Although this isn't syntactically ambiguous, it is definitely migraine-inducing. Based on this, I'm glad they decided to require the parentheses. Although code like this shouldn't be written, at least a reader would have a fighting chance of understanding something like
if (if (if (if A then B else C) then D else E) then F else G) then
-- Adam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-30 15:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-27 0:29 Quantified expressions: no support for restriction predicates phil.clayton
2012-04-27 23:43 ` Randy Brukardt
2012-04-28 11:30 ` phil.clayton
2012-04-29 14:03 ` Robert A Duff
2012-04-29 18:37 ` phil.clayton
2012-04-29 19:35 ` Robert A Duff
2012-05-01 2:48 ` Randy Brukardt
2012-05-01 11:35 ` phil.clayton
2012-04-30 15:57 ` Adam Beneschan [this message]
2012-05-01 11:14 ` phil.clayton
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox