On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 07:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you note, the per-pattern syntax could be ugly. Maybe PATTERN-SLOT patterns could be enclosed by square brackets instead of parentheses, or something like that? We're not actually constrained by traditional LISP syntax, and I'm already giving very serious consideration to {}-delimited blocks of embedded Java(-like) code.
If you're taking votes, mine would lie almost always on the side of keeping the language syntax simple. Please only add to the language syntax if the alternative is truly gruesome. For example, is the "{}" syntax better than just having a function that executes Java-like code (perhaps "java-progn")? It's not just that I have an affection for LISP; I believe that a language is easier to learn and understand (and code easier to understand and maintain) if the syntax is simple and capabilities merely increase the set of operations in the language (easily looked up in an alphabetical function reference).
I wouldn't want to see JESS turn into C++...
-- Prof. Michael Stiber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computing and Software Systems http://faculty.washington.edu/stiber University of Washington, Bothell tel: +1-425-352-5280 Box 358534, 18115 Campus Way NE fax: +1-425-352-5216 Bothell, WA 98011-8246 USA
-------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]' in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
