Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like language

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:05:40 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[13 earlier articles]
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2010-12-29)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like marcov@turtle.stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2010-12-30)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2010-12-30)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2010-12-30)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2010-12-30)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2010-12-31)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2010-12-31)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like fw@deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) (2010-12-31)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like noitalmost@cox.net (noitalmost) (2010-12-31)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2011-01-02)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like gene.ressler@gmail.com (Gene) (2011-01-02)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like torbenm@diku.dk (2011-01-04)
Re: language design implications for variant records in a pascal-like jm@bourguet.org (Jean-Marc Bourguet) (2011-01-05)
[40 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:05:40 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: 10-12-040 10-12-043
Keywords: design
Posted-Date: 01 Jan 2011 22:17:17 EST

George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:


> Personally, I would say add variant records if it isn't too hard and
> won't cause conflict with your intended class implementation. IMO it
> never hurts to give the programmer choices.


I rather strongly disagree with that last sentence. Giving the
programmer more choices means the programmer has more to learn,
and the compiler writer has more work to do. That's a good
idea only if the alternatives are sufficiently useful.


In this case, I don't think it's worth it -- I think it's possible
to design a single language feature that does everything classes
can do, and everything variant records can do. No need for
two completely different features, each with its own syntax
and semantics.


- Bob
[I have to agree. You want a language with lots and lots of choices,
look at PL/I. -John]



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.