On Aug 22, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Mietek Bąk wrote:
On 22/8/2006, at 21:16, David Powers wrote:
the verbosity is partially why I want a datatype scope. That
said... how about:
meta.data.(array|hash|record) - used only for in-code data
descriptions (literal arrays, etc)
I believe "structure" would be a better name than "data". "data"
is too general; everything can be argued to be data, while
"structure" implies that the block being scoped has some internal
structure.
You can make that sort of argument for any single word, though. The
language is just not precise enough. I would argue, for example, that
an array is not a structure. To completely avoid ambiguity, you need
to use a phrase or invent your own terminology.
I think 'data' is actually appropriate historical usage for source
code, but I'd suggest 'inline'.
meta.inline.(array|hash|record)
meta.inline-data.(array|hash|record) ?
meta.data.(array|hash|record)
or even remove 'meta':
data.(array|hash|record)
inline.(array|hash|record)
inline-data.(array|hash|record)
Note that the current top level string.* hierarchy should probably be
placed under the proposed datatype hierarchy:
inline-data.string.(double-quoted|whatever)
Chris
_______________________________________________
textmate-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate-dev
