Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> While Perl -lets- every function be well prototyped, it doesn't -require-
> every function to be well prototyped. Because of this, it might be well
> nigh impossible to eliminate all ambiguity to the compiler.
Well, right. Clearly, in those cases, you can expect to nee
John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
> >
> > You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
> > parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
> > anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
> > what's going on.
>
At 03:35 PM 9/27/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Piers Cawley wrote:
> >
> > You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
> > parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
> > anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
> > what's going on.
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> Perl is English-like. And sometimes in English parentheses *are* necessary to
> increase both meaning and readability, as your own message proves.
That's rather disingenuous, since perl does not use parens for
the same purpose English does. Parens are necessary in a pro
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:35:39PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Yes, but it's hard to read. Lisp requires parens, because it
> has no precedence rules. (Well, hardly any). It has (almost)
> no other syntax. This is the situation we would like to avoid
> in perl. By letting every operator have w
Simon Cozens wrote:
> Readability is a programmer feature, not a language feature.
Right. Parens, and other devices for "readability", are there
for the user to use, if she chooses. Perl is not about forcing
a certain style.
--
John Porter
Aus des Weltalls ferne funken Radiosterne.
Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
> parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
> anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
> what's going on.
Yes, but it's hard to read. Lisp requires parens, bec
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:30:36AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> Although I have no interest in saying anything supportive of this idea, I think
> it would be dreadfully funny if Python suddenly lost its primary point of
> advocacy against the Perl language just because we allowed (not required)
On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 10:21 AM, John Porter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> Philip Newton wrote:
> > On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > >
> > > By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
> > > indentation to define block structure.
> >
> > What an idea! I
Philip Newton wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> >
> > By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
> > indentation to define block structure.
>
> What an idea! I wonder why no language has tried this before.
It's a question of what the language allows vs. what
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Readability is a programmer feature, not a language feature.
The most important optimization a programmer can make is to optimize
for understanding.
--
Piers
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:52:57AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
> parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
> anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
> what's going on.
I'd go further
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27 Sep 2000 19:54]:
> On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
[...]
> > By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
> > indentation to define block structure.
> What an idea! I wonder why no language has tried this before.
I realise you're
Robert Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > (defun Schwartzian (func list)
> > (mapcar
> >(lambda (x) (car x))
> >(sort
> > (mapcar
> > (lambda (x) (cons x (funcall func x)))
> > list
> > )
> > (lambda (x y) (< (cdr x) (cdr y)))
> > )
On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so fewer "cluttering"
> > parentheses are needed to make things readable while still being correct.
>
> Since when do parentheses make things less readable?
Each parenthesis is one "token". The more tokens y
On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so fewer "cluttering"
> > parentheses are needed to make things readable while still being correct.
>
> By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
> indentation to define block structur
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 12:43:07PM -0700, Robert Mathews wrote:
> Ok, you've proved that lisp doesn't make sense without all those
> annoying parentheses. Congratulations. Fortunately, perl isn't lisp.
Correct, John bringing lisp into the discussion *was* a canard.
--
Writing software is more
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> Maybe you'd prefer this:
>
> defun Schwartzian func list mapcar lambda x car x sort mapcar
> lambda x cons x funcall func x list lambda x y < cdr x cdr y
What happened to the newlines?
Also, "no parens" is not the only alternative to having parens.
Other punctiation is
Simon Cozens wrote:
> (defun Schwartzian (func list)
> (mapcar
>(lambda (x) (car x))
>(sort
> (mapcar
> (lambda (x) (cons x (funcall func x)))
> list
> )
> (lambda (x y) (< (cdr x) (cdr y)))
> )
>)
> )
>
> Maybe you'd prefer this:
>
> defun Schwartzian
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 02:06:47PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > Since when do parentheses make things less readable?
>
> Can you say "lisp"?
"lisp".
(defun Schwartzian (func list)
(mapcar
(lambda (x) (car x))
(sort
(mapcar
(lambda (x) (cons x (funcall func x)))
list
Johan Vromans wrote:
> Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so fewer "cluttering"
> > parentheses are needed to make things readable while still being correct.
>
> Since when do parentheses make things less readable?
> What is your definition of readable?
Can you say "lisp"?
--
Joh
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so fewer "cluttering"
> parentheses are needed to make things readable while still being correct.
By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
indentation to define block structure.
-- Johan
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so fewer "cluttering"
> parentheses are needed to make things readable while still being correct.
Since when do parentheses make things less readable?
What is your definition of readable?
-- Johan
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, raptor wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >
> > > =item perl6storm #0050
> > >
> > > Radical notion: consider removing precedence.
> > > Wrong precedence makes people miserable.
> What if we have t
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> > =item perl6storm #0050
> >
> > Radical notion: consider removing precedence.
> > Wrong precedence makes people miserable.
>
> (Some people already suggest that Perl only has two precedence rules: (1)
>
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> =item perl6storm #0050
>
> Radical notion: consider removing precedence.
> Wrong precedence makes people miserable.
(Some people already suggest that Perl only has two precedence rules: (1)
multiplication and division come before
26 matches
Mail list logo
