On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 04:05:30AM +0100, Daniel Brockman wrote:
> That is, hyphen and underscore are synonymous in identifiers,
> but an initial hyphen is not taken to be part of the identifier.
>
Why not make this feature generic and define equivalence classes for
equivalent characters in an id
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:56:27AM +0100, Daniel Brockman wrote:
: That problem is not specific to this feature. For any package
: that changes the syntax, you can ask "what about eval?"
:
: So... what *about* eval? :-)
Always parses with the parser in effect at that point, the same one you'd
ge
Jan,
> No offense either, but if you are suggesting that
>
> @a[$i-1] + @a[$i+1]
>
> should be interpreted as
>
> @a[$i_1] + @a[$i+1]
>
> then I think it is pretty obvious why this is a really bad idea.
That's a very good example. I think I'm going to have to
change my mind and agree t
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Daniel Brockman wrote:
> No offense to whoever made that suggestion, but I think there are far
> more people out there with a developed taste for hyphenated
> identifiers than there are people with a thing for using backticks as
> subscript operators.
>
> Do you see the differe
> No sane person would put their braces in different places in
> different parts of their code, so why don't we just say,
> "from now on, you must use brace style X"?
Have you never seen code that's been worked on by several people with
differing tastes in brace positioning and no coding standard?
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> this idea would need to be worked out in much greater detail. there are
> many different identifiers in perl. would all of them be subject to this
> change? how would a global work if some other module refered to it using
> underscores but your module used
> "DB" == Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DB> You may be right about this. I would be happy if the
DB> standard distribution came with a package that enabled the
DB> hyphenated identifiers syntax in the lexical block:
DB>use hyphenated_identifiers;
DB> Hopefully th
chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yet you have the choice of where to put your braces, even
>> though the braces don't lend themselves to different tasks
>> depending on whether you put them on a new line or not.
>
> You *don't* have the choice to use different types of
> braces, though --
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 07:27 +0100, Daniel Brockman wrote:
> Yet you have the choice of where to put your braces, even
> though the braces don't lend themselves to different tasks
> depending on whether you put them on a new line or not.
You *don't* have the choice to use different types of braces
Thank you for your considerate reply, Brent.
> I see a few syntactic problems with this idea: the subtraction and
> negation operators you already mentioned,
Did I miss any problems related to those?
> but also the fact that dashes are already used in package names to
> indicate version and auth
Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what is my suggestion? Obviously disallowing underscores
> and instead allowing hyphens would just replace one problem
> with an even worse problem (not only would there still be
> people who don't like hyphens, but it would alienate a large
> portio
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 05:31 +0100, Daniel Brockman wrote:
> This is a very valid concern, but the problem will not arise
> unless people start mixing these two styles --- something
> which is very obviously not a good idea.
That doesn't mean that people will avoid it, by accident or on purpose.
I
Sebastian,
> I like hyphens. They're easier to type and help
> prevent_me_from_Doing_This and generating errors because
> of case sensitivity.
>
> On the other hand, consistency of appearance may be a
> problem for some people. I often associate code with the
> way it looks on screen, not necessa
I like hyphens. They're easier to type and help
prevent_me_from_Doing_This and generating errors because of case
sensitivity.
On the other hand, consistency of appearance may be a problem for some
people. I often associate code with the way it looks on screen, not
necessarily with what it does or
I'm not a Lisp weenie. However, I have always preferred
hyphens over underscores, and I have always preferred
identifiers that use delimiters over camel-cased ones.
I just think `foo-bar-baz' looks better than `foo_bar_baz'.
Maybe it's the "lexical connotation" of hyphens from natural
language (i
15 matches
Mail list logo
