Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 20:48 +0000, Sam Mason wrote: >> Is this a problem because symbols are more opaque than names? > > Not really. It's a problem because you can't even know how the *parse* > will behave without full knowledge of every gritty little symbol that > some genious library builder felt compelled to help you by introducing. > It's an enormous (human) impediment to understanding what is going on.
And yet, so is the use of deeply nested bracketing to implement a sequence of operations. For instance, try working with monads without the do-notation. Judicious use of operators with customizable precedence can greatly *improve* the clarity of code, as much as it can harm it. As for code analysis, I consider that a standard library deficiency. Why isn't the language's parser available in its own standard library? Sandro _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
