I haven't been following this thread closely, but the impression I've
got is that the arguments have centered around whether: var gets val, or
an equivalent is acceptable xtalk *style*.
I would say that var gets val conforms to the spirit of xtalk, but
unfortunately it does not conform to the syntax, because you cannot
start a program line with a container name. At present that is a syntax
error, regardless of any operator that you might type after it.
A line of transcript must start with a command or keyword, so to be
compatible the command would be constructed like:
gets A=1
or something along those lines. And all that is achieved is that you can
type = instead of into. (The local command can actually take this form
of course).
Martin Baxter
Dennis Brown wrote:
Dar,
I am not arguing for "=", I am arguing for "gets" and some shortcut
that suits, if any. "Gets" is a cousin of "get" command that is
already a left assignment operator. It does not introduce a new
concept to the syntax, but just makes the "get" construct more
general. I actually find it a bit awkward when I have used the "get
x" construct, then decide later to use another variable instead of
"it". The editing is a lot more than just changing variable names. I
have even taken to "put x into it" on occasion, just so I can more
easily change my mind later. I would be happy to be able to change
"get x" to "myVariable gets x".
Dennis
On Jun 23, 2005, at 1:40 PM, Dar Scott wrote:
On Jun 23, 2005, at 11:17 AM, Dennis Brown wrote:
The "get x" construct is already a syntactic equivalent of "it= x"
(left assignment).
That could be expanded to the general form "it gets x".
Now we have a general xTalk flavored version using the new "gets"
keyword.
From there just substitute any shortcut for "gets" like "gts" or "=".
There you have it. Elegance, consistency, and brevity!
There is nothing elegant about "=" for assignment. IMHO, ":=" is
much superior and is less offensive. In mathematics "=" is a
relation or sometimes a function or sometimes used in "where" or
"let" syntax (named value scoping).
Commands in xTalk follow the English implied-you imperatives. The
deviation from that to a descriptive of the dataflow does not fit. I
come from a functional programming background, but I accept the
imperative style.
Dar
--
**********************************************
DSC (Dar Scott Consulting & Dar's Lab)
http://www.swcp.com/dsc/
Programming and software
**********************************************
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
