From: Daniel Brockman <daniel@...>
Date: 2005-07-18T03:34:14+09:00
Subject: Re: `not' in parameter lists

gwtmp01@mac.com writes:

> On Jul 17, 2005, at 1:20 PM, Daniel Brockman wrote:
>
>> Is there any word on the chances of [‘assert foo.respond_to? bar’]
>> becoming allowed in the future?  I mean, is it definitely ruled
>> out, or is there room for persuation?
>
> Personally I don't like this sort of "change" to a language or
> library.  There are certain *core* ideas in a programming language
> (or library or framework) that should be obvious to every single
> programmer using that system.

The “core idea” in this case being... what?

> Flexibility in a language is important but should only be used to
> augment the core language.

Are you still talking about ‘foo bar baz’, did you change subject to
my tounge-in-cheek ‘foo.not.bar?’ hack, or was that sentence just a
random assertion?

> When the flexibility is used to obfuscate the core ideas via a
> "dialect" the result is often only of use to the original author.

In this case, what flexibility is being abused?

> Here is a function from the Version 7 Bourne Shell that was
> notorious for its abuse of C macros:  [gibberish]

Your point being... that C should not have had macros?
That the Version 7 Bourne Shell should not have abused them?
Or is the analogy that this is all well and good,

   assert foo.respond_to?(:bar)

while the following looks like the Bourne Shell gibberish?

   assert foo.respond_to? :bar

-- 
Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>

    So really, we all have to ask ourselves:
    Am I waiting for RMS to do this?   --TTN.