On Nov 23, 2007 3:09 PM, Wm Annis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm saying there's nothing at all simple or natural about math > precedence rules. Only our familiarity with certain kinds of > programming languages make it seem so.
It's our familiarity with math, not a programming language. Am I the only one who has to work a lot with math? Maybe that explains why you don't want to understand my problem. > And I repeat my question from before — how often are precedence > confusions *really* a problem? Is there any data on this at all, or > are we just arguing from theoretical stances about what is "easier, > more natural and less error-prone" in programming? Does it suffice if I refer to common knowledge in interaction design that modality results in errors? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(computer_interface) http://www.humanized.com/weblog/2006/12/07/is_visual_feedback_enough_why_modes_kill/ Both articles also refer to more information. Bye, Waldemar Kornewald _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
