Re JSON: The concept of the escape character is prevalent in many other
languages and formats, but is imho extremely un-rexxish.
Apart from that, nothing against JSON personally.
Jon
On 23 September 2014 12:05, Erich Steinböck <[email protected]>
wrote:
> do name over ["Mike", "Jon", "David"]
>> locs = .directory~of(["Rick", "USA"], ["Mike", "UK"])
>>
>
> There's a very popular standard that ooRexx could adhere to: JSON
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Sahananda (Jon) Wolfers <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rick,
>>
>> I entirely understand your concerns about the square brackets.
>> I don't know whether this is the time to spend our gold. I'm interested
>> to hear what others say.
>>
>> I like the assignment to map-collections
>>
>> A further thought. I have also seen other languages parsing an array
>> into variables thus:
>>
>> [var1,var2,var3] = .array~of(value1, value2, value3)
>>
>> but I think that is rather un-rexxish and certainly not just syntactic
>> sugar and imho is included in the other languages because of their poverty
>> of decent collections.
>>
>> just my 2p worth
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On 18 September 2014 14:24, Rick McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I confess that I've been wanting a shortcut for creating arrays for a
>>> long time and have even considered submitting this feature request myself.
>>> This is not something difficult to implement, but my resistance to doing
>>> this has more to do with the fact that it introduces new syntax.
>>>
>>> Using square brackets for purposes other than message invocations has
>>> always been one of those "back pocket" syntax elements that have been held
>>> in reserve until a use that was good enough to say "yes, this is really
>>> what I want to use this for.". Other uses for brackets I've considered in
>>> the past have been multi-line literals and creating variable references.
>>> This has always been a balancing act. You don't want to use this on
>>> something trivial, but at the same time, you don't want to be so resistant
>>> to using it that you have effectively removed from being a possibility.
>>> Curly braces have been in this category for a VERY long time. We need to
>>> consider if "syntactic" sugar is important enough use for this syntactic
>>> concept.
>>>
>>> Admittedly, array objects are very important in ooRexx. They pop up in
>>> lots of situations as return values and also as arguments to both
>>> instructions and methods. Are they important enough that they get the
>>> special syntax rather than some other object type? That needs to be
>>> considered. There are a few obvious places where this might make a lot of
>>> sense. Jon shows the obvious assignment case, but this would be fairly
>>> useful for things like DO OVER
>>>
>>> do name over ["Mike", "Jon", "David"]
>>>
>>> looks nicer than
>>>
>>> do name over .array~of("Mike", "Jon", "David")
>>>
>>> and feels a bit more natural and integrate.
>>>
>>> Being able to create arrays without a lot of extra syntax would make
>>> something like OF methods for map collections workable. For example,
>>>
>>> locs = .directory~of(["Rick", "USA"], ["Mike", "UK"])
>>>
>>> where you are using the array syntax to create index/value pairs for
>>> insertion into the directory.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I've laid out the issues as I see them. I think this is
>>> something that needs a bit of discussion before a decision is made because
>>> of the syntax issues. The 5.0 release I've been working on would be a good
>>> place to introduce this concept.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Jon Wolfers <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:08 AM
>>> Subject: [oorexx:feature-requests] #613 Syntactic sugar for array
>>> creation
>>> To: Ticket 613 <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> ** [feature-requests:#613] Syntactic sugar for array creation**
>>>
>>> **Status:** unread
>>> **Milestone:** None
>>> **Created:** Thu Sep 18, 2014 09:08 AM UTC by Jon Wolfers
>>> **Last Updated:** Thu Sep 18, 2014 09:08 AM UTC
>>> **Owner:** nobody
>>>
>>> Just an idea.
>>>
>>> How about a bit of syntactic sugar such that
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>> variable = ['First','Second','Third']
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>> is equivalent to
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>> variable = .array~of('First','Second','Third')
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> It could also be allowed for cases like
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>> do variable over ['First','Second','Third']
>>> ...
>>> end
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have seen this in other languages and think it is quite neat
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in <
>>> https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/feature-requests/613/>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit <
>>> https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Want excitement?
>>> Manually upgrade your production database.
>>> When you want reliability, choose Perforce
>>> Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
>>>
>>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Oorexx-devel mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Want excitement?
>> Manually upgrade your production database.
>> When you want reliability, choose Perforce
>> Perforce version control. Predictably reliable.
>>
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oorexx-devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
