On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:02:35 +0000 div0 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Both of these points may conflict with semantic considerations above: > > we may want to use structs for fast creation, but if ever they mean > > "things", we must think at referencing them manually and/or using > > ref parameters. We may want to use classes for light passing, > > but if they mean values, we must either never assign them or > > manually copy their content. It's playing with fire: very > > dangerous risks of semantic breaks in both cases... > > Perhaps, but they are tools to implement a program design; > it's the program design that should be driving your choices not abstract > semantic considerations. Go down that route and you'll never get > anything done. I do not really get what you mean with "program design" as opposed to "semantic considerations". I tend to think that "program design" should precisely be driven by "semantic considerations" -- and that it's the main purpose of good language design to allow this as straightforwardly as possible. A bad langage is for me one in which one can hardly express what is meant -- leading to what I call "semantic distorsion" ;-). So, what is "program design" for you? Denis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- vit esse estrany ☣ spir.wikidot.com
