From: Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
Date: 2004-02-01T03:29:53+09:00
Subject: Re: No difference between .. and ... flip/flop operators?

On Jan 31, 2004, at 12:37, Michael campbell wrote:

> Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
>
>> An interesting question; I'll try to give a coherent answer. First of 
>> all, I have to read other people's code, and if they use obscure, 
>> hard-to-understand constructs
>
> I don't find it either of those.
>
>
>> that I have to look up every time
>
> nor do I have to do that.

Point taken. But then, I know from talking to others that my opinion on 
it's clarity and my need to look it up are not isolated occurrences.


>> , it makes it much harder to grok what's going on.
>
> I understand and respect your point here, but is it not a nicer way of 
> saying "I find hard to grok, so it should be restricted from 
> _everyone's_ use"?

Well, I'd phrase it more as, "It's hard for a lot of people to grok, so 
we should find a better construct for it." I don't think the 
functionality should go away, but I think it should be implemented as a 
library function, not a piece of the syntax. Or, if it is syntax, that 
that syntax should be more inherently self-apparent.

I'd also add the sentence, "I find it dog-ugly, so I will do everything 
within my power to see that it DIES!" It's this that really drives 
me... the aesthetics of the construct just make me want to wretch. It's 
an amalgamation of several different pieces of the language that just 
don't make sense together. Oh, and it has internal state that those 
various pieces don't. It just doesn't seem to fit in. Now if I was the 
only one who had this opinion, then it should certainly stay... but 
apparently matz agrees with me at some level. I'm bummed that some 
people will miss it, but that's the fun of language design - you get to 
"Tick off all of the people, some of the time." I'm glad he's the 
designer and not me :-)


Nathaniel

<:((><