Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.)

schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schrod)
Fri, 28 Apr 1995 10:11:13 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Re: Q: Definition of a scripting lang. lwall@netlabs.com (1995-03-27)
The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) prechelt@i41s25.ira.uka.de (1995-04-11)
Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) stidev@gate.net (1995-04-19)
Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) cef@geodesic.com (Charles Fiterman) (1995-04-19)
Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) ludemann@netcom.com (1995-04-28)
Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) scooter@mccabe.mccabe.com (1995-04-27)
Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) cg@Myrias.AB.CA (1995-04-27)
Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (1995-04-28)
Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) jgmorris@cs.cmu.edu (Greg Morrisett) (1995-04-29)
Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) J.C.Highfield@loughborough.ac.uk (1995-04-30)
Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (1995-04-30)
Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) daveb@perth.DIALix.oz.au (1995-04-30)
Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition lutz@KaPRE.COM (1995-05-09)
Re: The semicolon habit (was: Q: Definition of a scripting lang.) anw@maths.nottingham.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) (1995-05-02)
[27 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schrod)
Keywords: syntax
Organization: TH Darmstadt, FG Systemprogrammierung
References: 95-04-013 95-04-147
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 10:11:13 GMT

Charles Fiterman <cef@geodesic.com> writes:
> Further I find {} silly. Everyone in their right mind indents. Count
> indentation from the leftmost character of the previous line. Either
> eliminate tabs as valid within programs or give them some standard
> meaning like a tab takes you to the nearest 4's boundary.


That's fine as long as you write the program.


I often have to generate programs. In particular, I don't even
generate the programs itself, but generate a pre-program that uses
refinements to specify the bits and pieces that gets inserted in a
common skeleton. (E.g., literate programming systems like noweb or
nuweb may be (mis)used for that.) Preprocessors create the actual
program that gets compiled.


In such circumstances it's a Bad Thing(tm) if white space in general
(and particularily indentation) is used to specify control flow. It
would get messed up much too often.


The markup language crowd learned it's lesson long ago: Please, no
optical markup. Add explicite tags to your document. Why don't we
stay with that?


Cheers,
Joachim
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Joachim Schrod Email: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de
Computer Science Department
Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany
--


Post a followup to this message

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