| 1 |
Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> If you can, try integrate a name based syntax into the requirement. |
| 3 |
> using decorative characters alone may have their uses, but there are |
| 4 |
> only so many you can use, and so many combinations you can create |
| 5 |
> before all your code starts looking like perl's acme eyedrops. I say |
| 6 |
> name based, because this allows some degree of permitting forward |
| 7 |
> development & enhancement without majorly breaking an existing system |
| 8 |
> :) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
Wow that all sounds mega: er what does it mean? ;) I mean, can you give |
| 11 |
examples of the syntax please? I'm guessing and instead of && but what |
| 12 |
about (..) Is that going to be line-based? (LISP brackets are very annoying |
| 13 |
imo.) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> ( im not much of a lisper, but lisp a lot of functionality for the |
| 16 |
> cost of very minimal symbol abuse . .im not saying we should use lisp |
| 17 |
> syntax, but maybe a page from their book in terms of expandability ) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yeah #haskell has nice ideas too.. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives