| 1 |
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:21:34 +0800 |
| 2 |
konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Well that's just it: ease of use and simplicity vs. portability with |
| 5 |
> possible new parameter types in the future; your pick. I'll |
| 6 |
> personally go for the former this time. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Also, what kind of added type of parameters would you expect that |
| 9 |
> would be conflicting with USE flags, or other operators? Wouldn't |
| 10 |
> adding another operator be enough, and not an identifying key? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I also find that the current features are already mature enough; we're |
| 13 |
> just enhancing it to have better control. I don't expect anything big |
| 14 |
> to be added further. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Its just frustrating for me, because its not the first time I've had this |
| 17 |
conversation. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I have some vague memory of the last time we changed dependency syntax, |
| 20 |
and I said then something along the lines of "hey, why not get this right so |
| 21 |
we don't have to have this again later" |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And here we are, bike shedding, debating new syntax classes without forsight. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> would be conflicting with USE flags, or other operators? Wouldn't |
| 26 |
> adding another operator be enough, and not an identifying key? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The difference between an "operator" and an "identifier" is one of the two |
| 29 |
hails from a limited set of punctuation marks, and sometimes the order is |
| 30 |
important. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
For example: 5 + 6 and add( 5, 6 ), are functionally equivalent, however, |
| 33 |
the former hailed from a narrow supply of characters which people saw fit |
| 34 |
to use for everything, and now you have fun problems in JavaScript where |
| 35 |
"+" does more than one thing depending on conditions. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Punctuation is powerful, but its a limited resource that serves itself |
| 38 |
best when used sparingly. |
Archives