On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:38:55PM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: > Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:14:24PM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: > > > I'm not sure about the last two (in a lot of ways, they're more like > > > := than = ), > > > > I don't see that. > > Well, for one thing, my way would mean that `set` is always `:=`.
Oh, that reminds me: I don't mind keeping "set", but I wonder if it's actually _worth_ keeping. > Basically, though, my way would mean that copying the register's exact > contents would always be done with `:=`, and more complicated > assignments with potentially complex semantics would always be `=`. I see your point. But I think awareness of reference semantics is more important. That is, it's more important that a scan of the code for ':=' will show where aliasing might change, leaving '=' to always follow value semantics. There's a bit of semantic spillover from Perl 6 in this view, I'll grant you. -- Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
