|[12 earlier articles]|
|Re: User definable operators email@example.com (1996-12-24)|
|Re: User definable operators firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-12-26)|
|Re: User definable operators email@example.com (Craig Burley) (1996-12-26)|
|Re: User definable operators firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-12-26)|
|Re: User definable operators email@example.com (Jerry Leichter) (1996-12-27)|
|Re: User definable operators firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-12-28)|
|Re: User definable operators WStreett@shell.monmouth.com (1996-12-29)|
|Re: User definable operators email@example.com (1997-01-02)|
|Re: User definable operators firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-01-02)|
|Re: User definable operators email@example.com (Dr A. N. Walker) (1997-01-03)|
|Re: User definable operators WStreett@shell.monmouth.com (1997-01-03)|
|Re: User definable operators firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-01-07)|
|Re: User definable operators email@example.com (1997-01-07)|
|[1 later articles]|
|From:||WStreett@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)|
|Date:||29 Dec 1996 15:28:17 -0500|
|References:||96-12-088 96-12-110 96-12-147 96-12-163 96-12-181|
>>Notation has to be overloaded to be of reasonable length.
So what is more important is that the notation is of "reasonable"
length than it follows generally accepted and defined abstractions?
Suppose for a minute that I did the same with the English language?
For the sake of demonstration I decided to change what each of the
words in the previous sentence mean. Then you have to resort to the
more extended reference to determine what the previous sentence means,
because you have to check to be sure if the notation is the expected
notation or the new extended notation. That means that the notation
is NOT of reasonable length, but that you have to be sure to
understand all of the supporting notation (which is not in front of
you) in order to be able to understand the notation in front of you.
Now since you don't know how if I decided to overload the meanings of
the words above, you don't know if I actually said something that
means something. Or if I said that you don't understand the effects
of overloading notation because you don't understand the advantages of
clearly defined symbols and a clear separation between those that are
clearly defined and those that are not.
Of course, I've overloaded the meaning of the English language, so you
don't have any way to know if I actually said something that might
have meaning or even actually be useful. Or did I overload the
meaning of the words that said that I going to overload the English
language, so maybe I didn't overload the meanings of the words at all.
Three paragraphs, that's a reasonable length. Now what did I say?
> By the time one reads the lengthy variable names which seem to
> delight the computer people, the structure of the expression is
So long words confuse you? I don't like them either. But it's not
the length of the words that make a program structure readable or
> It is necessary to let the user invent notation, if necessary, and
> for the language and compiler to help, not hinder.
The user can invent notation in most computer languages. The question
is not whether or not they can invent notation, but in what fashion
they will be allowed to invent that notation and what safeguards there
are in the language design to insure that they are clearly documented
as being invented notations as opposed to intrinsic ones.
[Wow, deconstructed C++, I can hardly wait. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.