> Yes, infix "a + b" parsing would be easier to read If you are targeting non-programmers, I think the bigger point is that a + b is easier to write. I do understand the motivation for prefix from the implementation standpoint. The issue, I suppose, will be how early you want to include non-programmers as users.
Anyway, that's my 15.2 cents (inflation unadjusted). I'm not your target audience in any case. Bob H On Jan 11, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Dooley, Damion wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for quick reply, and good point about keeping math expressions > familiar to most users. In this first round I settled for a simple > prefix "function(parameter1 parameter2 ...)". All the python infix > operators like "a + b" have equivalent prefix functions "add(a b)" so the > latter are used. > > Yes, infix "a + b" parsing would be easier to read, and I was thinking we > could try that on our next iteration (and remain backward compatible) but > more opinion may shift that up! (Some other issues to tackle too: > decisions about whether "/" should map to "div(a b)" or "truediv(a b)", > and how to avoid conflict with our namespace method of referring to > variables via a/b/c paths). > > I'm definitely avoiding eval() since we do have to control exactly which > functions, conditionals, and loop constructs are executed. Not trying to > provide the all-out iPython approach. > > D. > > > On 2016-01-11, 12:03 PM, "Bob Harris" <rshar...@bx.psu.edu> wrote: > >> On Jan 11, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Dooley, Damion wrote: >>> ... we're testing out a basic scripting language ... meant to provide >>> [folks] with >>> ways to [do something] without having to be programmers ... >>> .... >>> if( lt(/N50 200000) set(report/job/status FAIL)) >>> >>> Math is accomplished by python built-in math functions ... >> >> >> It could well be that's the only way to accomplish what you want in >> whatever environment you're in. But the use of prefix notation and a >> funny name, for an operator like "<" that non-programmers use familiarly >> as infix, would seem contrary to the stated goal that the user needn't be >> a programmer. >> >> If math can be accomplished via python, why not "<"? By "math" do you >> only mean function calls, and not arithmetic operators? Is it that >> python eval() can't be used because of security issues? >> >> Bob H >> > ___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: https://lists.galaxyproject.org/ To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
