From: Michael Campbell <michael_s_campbell@...>
Date: 2003-04-09T05:00:30+09:00
Subject: Re: 1.8 parse error?


> has the precedence of '<<' changed or something?  i don't
> understand why this should confuse the parser?
> 
> why the insistence the parens immeadiately follow method names?  i
> like the C
> style of
> 
>   method (args);
> 
> much more than
> 
>   method(args);

I know we're delving into holy ground here, but what makes you think
whitespace after a function call and before the left paren is a
c'ism?

The style guides I can come up with generally favor *NO* whitespace
after the function name when making a call.  The earliest
(chronologically) style guide I remember (and can find) is the Henry
Spencer Indian Hill one
(http://www.chris-lott.org/resources/cstyle/indhill-annot.html), and
while it doesn't explicitly say one way or the other, has in its
examples the mathematical (i.e. f(x)) style shown.

Later versions of the Indian Hill guide do show a mixture of
mathematical style and not in various examples but never say one way
or the other that I can find.  Ellemtel (granted, C++ here) says
explicitly to "Always write the left parenthesis directly after a
function name" (though this is I think implied for the declaration,
not the call.)

I only ask because I've only come to see this stylistic convention
(in languages that require parens for function/method/message calls)
recently; like in the last 8-9 years.  Prior to that it was almost
exclusively the mathematical style.



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com