From: chiaro scuro <kiaroskuro@...>
Date: 2006-03-01T01:03:19+09:00
Subject: Re: Subclassing Struct.new

On 2/28/06, mental@rydia.net <mental@rydia.net> wrote:
> Quoting chiaro scuro <kiaroskuro@gmail.com>:
>
> > I understand that it has been implemented statically, and that
> > the whole mechanism would need changing, but don't you agree that
> > this syntactic tagging and static interpretation of '=' is a kind
> > of defensive programming that we could do well without?
>
> It's not a matter of being defensive... because variables and method
> names are gramatically different, there are some constructs where
> one is (gramatically) valid but not the other.  The decision has to
> be made up-front, or the grammar drastically revised.

What I meant is that a feature of this grammar forces us to use this
style of programming.

I believe we can do without this style, because the rationale to
support it (without looking at the implementation details) is a
defensive programming argument.

I understand this would involve heavy work on the grammar.

Thanks for all your replies and explanations.  I am trying to get you
to agree on the fact that an '=' dynamic semantic lookup would be a
nice thing to have :-)

--

-- Chiaroscuro --
Liquid Development Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/liquiddevelopment