Josiah Carlson wrote:
> Boris Borcic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Of course, and that's why in my initial post I was talking of transparent
>> reversible transforms and central control of "styles" through the standard.
>> Means not to fall into the trap you describe. Or else I would have asked for
>> macros ! Are you implying that /no/ measure of language variability can be
>> dealt
>> with by such means as standards-controlled reversible transforms ? I guess
>> not.
>
> Regardless of the existance of reversable transforms, a user's ability
> to understand and/or maintain code is dependant on the syntax and
> semantics of the language.
If you have an effective isomorphism, that's irrelevant. Everybody works with
the language she understands. Ever tried a slide rule ?
> In allowing different language variants, one
> is changing the user-understood meaning of a block of code, which
> necessarily increses the burden of programming and maintenance.
Allowing different language variants connected by reversible transforms means
one need not change any user's understood meaning of any block of code. The
user
stipulates the language variant she likes and the system translates
back-and-forth from/to distinct variants other users might prefer.
- BB
--
666 ? - 666 ~ .666 ~ 2/3 ~ 1-1/3 ~ tertium non datur ~ the excluded middle
~ "either with us, or against us"
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
