On 2011-08-12, rantingrick <rantingr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 12, 11:33?am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote: >> My brain has quirks. ?Some people call them defects, some don't, but it >> really doesn't matter; there are things about which my brain is just plain >> unreliable and I rely moderately heavily on extra visual cues to reduce >> the frequency with which I get things wrong when skimming.
> I think that really boils down to you refusing to open your eyes up to > new ways of doing things. You think that, then? Okay. > You are clutching the past and it is taking > you down with it. I see. This is a brilliant new theory. I will further explore the notion that actually my brain is 100% normal with no limitations except that I have used languages with braces. Doubtless this will prove illuminating. >> No, because the *LANE BOUNDARIES* would move. > The "lane boundaries" will also move whilst reading code that uses the > indent/dedent paradigm. Are you honestly telling me that you will skip > over a four spaced dedent without seeing it however you can easily > spot a single closing brace and instantly "know" which corresponding > opener brace to which it referrers without looking, and counting, and > wasting time? Sorry, i just don't believe you. Nope, not telling you that. Here's my example: if foo: blah blah blah if bar: moreblah moreblah if quux: typingisboring typingisboring typingisboring moreblah moreblah if baz: somuchblah somuchblah somuchblah somuchblah somuchblah somuchblah somuchblah somuchblah abitmoreblah It's not easy for me to be sure, looking at something roughly like that, what's being closed and what isn't. If I have braces, I can tell how many things are being closed. I like that. It makes me happy. >> I propose we extend it to expression processing in general. ?Instead >> of writing >> ? ? ? ? a = (x + y) * z >> let's just write >> ? ? ? ? a = (x + y * z > I'm glad you brought this up! How about this instead: > a = x + y * z > ...where the calculation is NOT subject to operator precedence? I > always hated using parenthesis in mathematical calculations. All math > should resolve in a linear fashion. 3+3*2 should always be 12 and NOT > 9! Doesn't matter. At some point, somewhere, it would become desireable to introduce precedence with (), at which point, it is quite possible that the trailing ) would be redundant, so why not omit it? > I am not trying to discredit you simply by disagreeing with you. No, but you're certainly being insulting. > I have offered facts as to why significant indention is far superior to > braces and yet you continue to use the same emotionally charged babble > in your defense. Facts: Pry your lips from Ritchie's left teet and stop slurping that "brace" milk; because it is polluting your mind! Emotionally charged babble: My brain has quirks. Some people call them defects, some don't, but it really doesn't matter; there are things about which my brain is just plain unreliable and I rely moderately heavily on extra visual cues to reduce the frequency with which I get things wrong when skimming. > When you offer some real facts then i will give then > just consideration, until then i will "try" to enlighten you of the > merits of significant indentation. Well played! -s -- Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list