On 7 Nov, Erik Meijer wrote:
> >Another reason is that allowing definitions to be split up
> >without any special syntax indicating this would harm readability.
[...]
>
> This is *exectly* the reasoning I am opposed to. It is not to the language
> designer to decide for me what is readable of not!
<pantomime> Oh yes it is! </pantomime>*
I think there is a strong case for making this (and some, but not all
other similar issues) part of the language. In the first instance it
reduces (ideally removes?) the need for local style-checking
preprocessors. If I read a Haskell programme at the moment, I can be
sure when I've seen the last clause. If this were changed I'd need a
preprocessor to tell me that this sensible grouping had been
preserved. (Conventions are typically flouted unless eforced by the
compiler.
In the second instance, there is cause to believe that (good)
programming language designers _do_ know better than the typical
programmer. At least we should! (Erik: remember that you aren't a
typical programmer when you argue these things.) Typical programmers
misinterpret the results of readability research:
Me: "Why have you got _so_many_ blank lines in your programme?
Prog: "Blank lines improve the readability of code."
Me: "But there's so much space that you can't see a whole definition
at a time."
Prog: "Research has shown that the more blank lines there are, the
more readable the code"
Me: "!"
> Erik "warrior against the Edith Bunkerizing of programming
Who she?
> languages" Meijer
Jon
* apologies to those not familiar with the British pantomime traditions.
--
Jon Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
