--- "M. Scott Doerrie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dislike the + operators with source and result
> values being different
> types because the result can not be reassigned to a
> source variable.
> This makes using + to increment variables difficult,
> or at least
> unintuitive.
That was my point, to make the default + operator
dislikeable, but useable. Then a programmer is hit
with a compile error, he goes and looks up the
documentation, discovers he should most likely chose
between two other operators. Using the + operator is
something that most people who are new to the
environment will take for granted, when in fact there
are really two primary choices. It's a social
engineering approach to keeping a new programmer on
track and not allowing them to fall into old habits.
Another way is to not have a + operator at all, and
only two operators that are different, since a + or -
that changes size is rarely used. So the programmer
looking for + in the documentation doesn't find the
expected and is forced to consider the alternatives.
The shorthand thing is a good idea, which brings the
whole discussion back around to +%, -%, *%, etc. for
the wrap around or ring version. This was in the
original proposal.
One would need something for the exception version: +e
-e would be too easily confused with floating point
notation. +b, -b for bounded is okay, but doesn't jump
out at me saying what it is. Other possibilities
include: +?, -?, etc., question mark denotes it might
happen or maybe +!, -!, it might happen with a bang.
Shawn
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
