From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: C like op= proposal
Date: 1999/08/18
Date: 1999-08-18T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908182033010.14398-100000@shell5.ba.best.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7pecjk$std$1@nnrp1.deja.com
On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Robert Dewar wrote:
> The pseudo-variable proposal seems entirely horrible to me, and
> indeed was not discussed at all. I can see all kinds of abuse
> and very little gain from this syntactic vinegar :-)
ROTFL!
That little expression (syntactic vinegar) was the high point of a bland
day. Is that an original Dewarism?
> The idea of the evaluation of the right hand side being tied
> in semantically to the evaluation of the left hand side like
> this seems quite nasty to me, a real confusion in the
> fundamental semantics of assignment. Right now the semantics
> attributes of assignment are purely inherited, and you really
> want to keep things this way.
>
> Maybe I missed something, but I did not see any significant
> support for this particular notion, the discussion was almost
> all about the much cleaner (though still fraught with
> problems)+= type notation.
>
> I consider a renaming to be much cleaner for a reader than
> the use of your pseudo-variable (the latter is just syntactic
> sugar/vinegar for the former presumably???)
You presume correctly. I haven't seen the original language which did
this, Mode, since I think most of the docs are in Finnish. I saw this
idea described in Markku Sakkinen's C++ critique, and I thought it was
a neat idea. Some people like things like this, some don't. Obviously,
I'm not so dense that I find I = I + 1 and the like to be a problem,
but for complex array operations like the example Gautier presented and
other such things, I find this notation much easier reading than renaming.
If there are nasty semantics issues, and great potential for misuse,
that's another issue.
I wonder if C and C++ programmers find this stuff more readable? I'm
certainly in that category myself, meaning that I write C and C++ code
(and enjoy it!) even though in those cases that I use C I would
generally prefer Ada given the choice.
A more general point about "readability" is that its a pretty vague
notion, and I sometimes find Ada's verbosity a detriment to readability.
-- Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-08-18 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-08-15 0:00 C like op= proposal Brian Rogoff
1999-08-15 0:00 ` Ray Blaak
1999-08-15 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1999-08-16 0:00 ` Gautier
1999-08-17 0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu
1999-08-17 0:00 ` Gautier
1999-08-17 0:00 ` Andi Kleen
1999-08-18 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-08-17 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1999-08-18 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
1999-08-18 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1999-08-18 0:00 ` Jeff Carter
1999-08-18 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1999-08-19 0:00 ` Tarjei T. Jensen
1999-08-19 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
1999-08-19 0:00 ` Lance Kibblewhite
1999-08-19 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-08-20 0:00 ` P.S. Norby
1999-08-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-08-19 0:00 ` tmoran
1999-08-19 0:00 ` Michael F. Yoder
1999-08-21 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1999-08-18 0:00 ` Gautier
1999-08-18 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-08-18 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff [this message]
1999-08-19 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-08-21 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1999-08-23 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1999-08-18 0:00 ` Andi Kleen
1999-08-18 0:00 ` Gautier
1999-08-17 0:00 ` John Duncan
1999-08-17 0:00 ` Gautier
1999-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox