A further question is, assuming I support the $ being optional in the language,
which format should I prefer in example code?
Said "example code" comes in 2 main groups:
1. Normal example code, and for this I could potentially show 2 versions of
everything side-by-side (or above-by-below), one in each format. If I have
both, then which one should appear above/left and which below/right?
2. The routine signatures in the dozen or so documentation files that enumerate
all the system-defined routines, where each documents its signature like this:
function sys.std.A.B.foo (Bar <-- $baz : Baz, $quux : Quux) {...}
... vs:
function sys.std.A.B.foo (Bar <-- baz : Baz, quux : Quux) {...}
... which look exactly the same as real routine declarations except that the
"sys.std.A.B." is added for clearer documentation purposes.
In the #2 case, it would be messy to include both versions, so I would need to
pick one, so the question is which one is better.
This, I am less sure about, so more input to help me decide is welcome here.
So, the question of whether $ sigils are more or less readable is controversial
in the programming language community, while SQL, which Muldis D is primarily
meant to replace, doesn't generally use sigils, except in some procedural
extensions, while I personally find both generally readable but I prefer the
sigils for slightly better readability.
On a tangent, it occurs to me that I could or should remove the
purely-illustrative "sys.std.A.B." in the signature documentation so to make it
less verbose and then identical to the real thing; the full name-space is still
provided in the level-2 heading directly above the signature anyway; hence the
question is:
function foo (Bar <-- $baz : Baz, $quux : Quux) {...}
... vs:
function foo (Bar <-- baz : Baz, quux : Quux) {...}
-- Darren Duncan
_______________________________________________
muldis-db-users mailing list
muldis-db-users@mm.darrenduncan.net
http://mm.darrenduncan.net/mailman/listinfo/muldis-db-users
