Alan Manuel Gloria:

> Just when it's less than 2 weeks to spec freeze....


> I once had to code this expression:
> force(car(force(unwrap-box(s))))
> And it's ugly.
> I could use I-expressions:
> force
> . car
> . . force
> . . . unwrap-box s
> But that wastes precious vertical space.
> So I propose the SUBLIST semantic.

Hmm.  Function composition isn't unknown, of course, but I'm skeptical about 
how often this kind of construct occurs.  Every new rule has a mental cost; we 
need to make sure the cases are so common (or so egregious) that the construct 
is worth it.  Otherwise, people will reject it as being "too complicated" to 
learn.  The wrapped example you show above is actually how many other languages 
*would* show it.

I also worry about using up one-character symbols; if we do anything like this, 
perhaps a multi-char symbol would do?  We could also pick a few symbols to 
"reserve" for cases like this; again, it's not so bad if we reserve 
multi-character symbols.

--- David A. Wheeler

Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
Readable-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to