I agree with David about double brackets, but I don't agree that sugar
makes one unproductive or hinders understanding - in fact I think the
opposite is true. One doesn't want to be coding '=' or '[]' with a
preceding twiddle.
I think that
do name over ['David','Rick','Jon']
is easier to understand than
do name over .array~of('David','Rick','Jon')
even though 'of' is a nicely contextualised word they don't need to know
that there is an array behind the do over mechanism.
Jon
On 18 September 2014 19:54, David Ashley <[email protected]> wrote:
> I want to stick my thumb in the pie on this topic.
>
> I think we need to be very careful of how much syntactic sugar we add to
> the language. Otherwise we might end up being like Perl with eight
> different ways of coding everything. I like Rexx/ooRexx because the
> language is consistent and easy to read/debug. The more syntactic sugar
> you add, the harder it is to read and you end up having to look up
> things you do not understand or have not encountered thus slowing your
> productivity.
>
> And the idea of double brackets - YUK! Reminds me of Lisp which IMHO is
> the least user friendly language I have ever encountered.
>
> Bottom line, syntactic sugar should only be added when it clearly
> enhances productivity or makes the code easier to read.
>
> David Ashley
>
> On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 13:41 -0400, Rick McGuire wrote:
> > I think these do need to be bracketed, since the "," is already used
> > in the IF/WHEN instruction and with DO WHILE/UNTIL for the shortcut
> > AND conditionals. Square brackets are already used as a message type
> > (primarily with collection objects), but thankfully, the usage follows
> > the same rules as builtin functions, so they can be used in both the
> > message form and paren-like fashion. Doubling up might work, but it
> > feels somehow "not right" to me.
> >
> >
> > Rick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Mike Cowlishaw <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > If one didn't want to use up the 'gold' of single
> > brackets ...
> >
> >
> > first, does one need the brackets at all? I've often thought
> > as commas in Rexx as being a list notation, in effect, so
> > perhaps:
> >
> > a=1, 2, 3
> >
> > or
> >
> > do x over 23, 34, 45
> >
> > Or, to save single-square-brackets one could go
> > Wikipedia-like:
> >
> > a=[[1, 2, 3]]
> >
> > etc ...
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
> >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oorexx-devel mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
> >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oorexx-devel mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
