On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 1:20 AM Marc Chantreux <m...@unistra.fr> wrote: > > Actually what I really like the most from all your answers was the fact > that I learned a lot not only about the langage but also some idoms.
That sounds cool. :) I know what *I* think of when I write "idiom" in the context of programming languages. But what do *you* mean? Or, even better, can you identify a few of the many useful suggestions folk have made in this thread which you would count as being, or possibly worthy of being, "idioms"? Wikipedia notes two uses of the term "idiom" in this context (claiming the first is correct but the second isn't, though the distinction seems immaterial here): > code [with a] semantic role, which recurs frequently across software projects > using a programming language in a typical way I know I wasn't particularly aiming at either of those, but instead playing golf in response to what I thought you were after, and focusing on: * First and foremost, Larry's notion of "clean golf" (minimal tokens, not bytes). * Secondarily my notion of "semantic golf" (minimal mental effort when reading). In other words my goal was code requiring minimal reading effort to understand while still appropriately expressing the desired computational result and/or effect. ---- > > Is that because it knows me, or has google started blessing Larry's > > neologisms for the whole planet?!? ) I now think it (gmail and/or my brain; they may or may not have merged) glitched on me. > Why not? new words happens all the time and those one are useful for > programmers. I had done a google for "whipupitude" before I wrote the thought bubble in my previous message. Google claimed it found 300 results. I just tried again; adding -perl shrank their claim to just 8 matches. That said, right now gmail is claiming whipupitude is misspelled... -- raiph > > -- > Marc Chantreux > Pôle de Calcul et Services Avancés à la Recherche (CESAR) > http://annuaire.unistra.fr/p/20200
