Dan Nagle wrote:
...
> And how is a new meaning of parenthesis adding 'clarity' ?
>
> That is, parentheses have only a few meanings, discernible
> from context. How is adding one more, in a similar context,
> more clear than an implied do?
That's exactly why I'm not really satisfied with 6(7) even
though I already have it supported in my preprocessor. It
looks too much like a missing operator or something. The
same for the other suggestion (6)7. A new operator perhaps?
I don't really care for implied do loops (I haven't got them
in my preprocessed language). I think an extended use of
the triplet notation is superior.
Aleksandar Donev wrote:
...
> Seriously, though, I do not see the need for new syntax. And if there
> is any new syntax, it must be wrapped inside some kind of delimiter
I disagree with that. There are any number of things that return
an array without any surrounding delimiter. A array name is
an array without needing a delimiter. So is an array valued
function reference.
--
J. Giles
"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies." -- C. A. R. Hoare
|