From: Markus <markus@...>
Date: 2004-10-10T01:24:31+09:00
Subject: Re: ANN: Free-form-operators patch

> > On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 12:43, Hal Fulton wrote:
> >>I believe that a language should provide "all the power you need" but "not
> >>too much more than you need." This is admittedly highly subjective.
> > 
> > 
> Markus ha scritto:
> >      The problem is, what if I want more power than you do?  And what if
> > Angilena Mathmatica or Bob Business wants something that neither of us
> > do?  I'd say that the language should provide enough flexibility for
> > everyone, so long as it's not required that anyone use it who doesn't
> > want it.

On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 01:04, gabriele renzi wrote:
> the problem I can see is: +,*,- have a ,more or less obvious semantic. 
> You can expect them to be implemented to be similar things in diffenret 
> domains.

> The problem is: given that -> is not a standard operator, what could 
> happen if Angelina and Joe Automator implement themselve it for 
> different things?
> 
> I mean, one could intend it as  a function definition operator, while 
> the other could use it to indicate movements of an hunter in the usual 
> wumpus labyrinth. then their two library would be completely incompatible.

     By exactly the same argument, we could claim that users should not
be able to define their own identifiers.  What if I think 'web' has
something to do with fishing, while you think it has something to do
with printing.  And who knows, maybe somebody else has a third
definition.  Think of the chaos.

    Remember, operators aren't defined in a vacuum, nor are they
global.  They are defined as messages send to objects, just like
methods. 

     -- Markus