View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
March 06, 2005
Re: Another try: "len" instead of length
I've seen len used at least as often as length as a variable name...

-[Unknown]


> Seems like my former post about this went unnoticed, since all three 
> responses  seemed to completely ignore my words. Therefore again:
> 
> How about using 'len' as a keyword with the meaning of the currently 
> proposed '$'?
> 
> It is much easier to type and not much longer than the '$'.
> 
> Also it spares the problem of wasting the character $ on such a profane 
> purpose.
> 
> Finally, the word 'length' could still be used to define the routine, 
> while 'len' could be an operator keyword. (Any existing code using len 
> as local variable would break: not silently but with a 
> unmisunderstandable error message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walter schrieb:
> 
>> [Starting a new thread on this, because the original is old and 
>> wandered off
>> topic too far]
>>
>> "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
>> news:cu90r1$1e7t$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>> Agreed. I have always supported the use of a symbol rather than an 
>>> English
>>> word to represent the array's length property. I'm keen to promote the
>>> readibilty of source code by humans, so an extra 'dot' seems counter
>>> productive to that aim.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The $ idea for the length is a good one. The reason I didn't adopt it was
>> because I am trying to save $ for something big. I have a lot of thoughts
>> (inspired by some emails from Andrei A.) that $ could be very, very 
>> useful
>> in a future metaprogramming feature. Using $ as a length is a minor 
>> use, too
>> minor for such an important symbol!
>>
>> So the options are:
>>
>> 1) Make it illegal for length within [ ] to hide another length in an 
>> outer
>> scope. This would essentially preclude length being used as a global, or
>> even as a class member.
>>
>> 2) Same as (1), but only restrict it if length is a variable local to a
>> function.
>>
>> 3) Make length a keyword. This is not that much different from (1).
>>
>> 4) Change length to another identifier. Nothing stands out as being
>> obviously right.
>>
>> 5) Invent a token for it that is other than '$'.
>>
>>
March 06, 2005
Re: Another try: "len" instead of length
"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown@simplemachines.org> wrote in message news:d0e8od$2b1e$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I've seen len used at least as often as length as a variable name...

That's far less important than the relative frequencies as property/method names.

Nonetheless, I don't think 'len' is any more of a go-er than 'length'


>
> -[Unknown]
>
>
>> Seems like my former post about this went unnoticed, since all three responses  seemed to completely ignore my words. 
>> Therefore again:
>>
>> How about using 'len' as a keyword with the meaning of the currently proposed '$'?
>>
>> It is much easier to type and not much longer than the '$'.
>>
>> Also it spares the problem of wasting the character $ on such a profane purpose.
>>
>> Finally, the word 'length' could still be used to define the routine, while 'len' could be an operator keyword. (Any 
>> existing code using len as local variable would break: not silently but with a unmisunderstandable error message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Walter schrieb:
>>
>>> [Starting a new thread on this, because the original is old and wandered off
>>> topic too far]
>>>
>>> "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
>>> news:cu90r1$1e7t$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>
>>>> Agreed. I have always supported the use of a symbol rather than an English
>>>> word to represent the array's length property. I'm keen to promote the
>>>> readibilty of source code by humans, so an extra 'dot' seems counter
>>>> productive to that aim.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The $ idea for the length is a good one. The reason I didn't adopt it was
>>> because I am trying to save $ for something big. I have a lot of thoughts
>>> (inspired by some emails from Andrei A.) that $ could be very, very useful
>>> in a future metaprogramming feature. Using $ as a length is a minor use, too
>>> minor for such an important symbol!
>>>
>>> So the options are:
>>>
>>> 1) Make it illegal for length within [ ] to hide another length in an outer
>>> scope. This would essentially preclude length being used as a global, or
>>> even as a class member.
>>>
>>> 2) Same as (1), but only restrict it if length is a variable local to a
>>> function.
>>>
>>> 3) Make length a keyword. This is not that much different from (1).
>>>
>>> 4) Change length to another identifier. Nothing stands out as being
>>> obviously right.
>>>
>>> 5) Invent a token for it that is other than '$'.
>>>
>>>
March 07, 2005
Re: Another try: "len" instead of length
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 15:24:27 +0100, Norbert Nemec  
<Norbert@Nemec-online.de> wrote:
> Seems like my former post about this went unnoticed, since all three  
> responses  seemed to completely ignore my words. Therefore again:
>
> How about using 'len' as a keyword with the meaning of the currently  
> proposed '$'?
>
> It is much easier to type and not much longer than the '$'.
>
> Also it spares the problem of wasting the character $ on such a profane  
> purpose.
>
> Finally, the word 'length' could still be used to define the routine,  
> while 'len' could be an operator keyword. (Any existing code using len  
> as local variable would break: not silently but with a  
> unmisunderstandable error message.

I dislike it. I think 'len' is common, it would annoy me greatly to have  
to rename all my 'len' vars.
I think any word solution suffers this problem of collision, as such any  
symbol solution is 'better'.

Regan


> Walter schrieb:
>> [Starting a new thread on this, because the original is old and  
>> wandered off
>> topic too far]
>>  "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message
>> news:cu90r1$1e7t$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>> Agreed. I have always supported the use of a symbol rather than an  
>>> English
>>> word to represent the array's length property. I'm keen to promote the
>>> readibilty of source code by humans, so an extra 'dot' seems counter
>>> productive to that aim.
>>    The $ idea for the length is a good one. The reason I didn't adopt  
>> it was
>> because I am trying to save $ for something big. I have a lot of  
>> thoughts
>> (inspired by some emails from Andrei A.) that $ could be very, very  
>> useful
>> in a future metaprogramming feature. Using $ as a length is a minor  
>> use, too
>> minor for such an important symbol!
>>  So the options are:
>>  1) Make it illegal for length within [ ] to hide another length in an  
>> outer
>> scope. This would essentially preclude length being used as a global, or
>> even as a class member.
>>  2) Same as (1), but only restrict it if length is a variable local to a
>> function.
>>  3) Make length a keyword. This is not that much different from (1).
>>  4) Change length to another identifier. Nothing stands out as being
>> obviously right.
>>  5) Invent a token for it that is other than '$'.
>>
March 07, 2005
Re: Another try: "len" instead of length
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 15:24:27 +0100, Norbert Nemec wrote:

> Seems like my former post about this went unnoticed, since all three 
> responses  seemed to completely ignore my words. Therefore again:
> 
> How about using 'len' as a keyword with the meaning of the currently 
> proposed '$'?

I guess that the probability of clashing with existing identifiers is
higher than acceptable.

> It is much easier to type and not much longer than the '$'.

How about a 3-letter token that is not likely to clash? maybe 'qzz', or
'_l_' or 'xyx', or ...  ;-)

Or maybe we could use a non-English word? Arabic or Chinese (Mandarin)
might be good.

> Also it spares the problem of wasting the character $ on such a profane 
> purpose.

Yes, the $ should be used for currency literals  ;-)

> Finally, the word 'length' could still be used to define the routine, 
> while 'len' could be an operator keyword. (Any existing code using len 
> as local variable would break: not silently but with a 
> unmisunderstandable error message.

Each new keyword placed into a language reduces the number of unique
identifier names available for coders, thus to do so would have to have
overwhelming benefit. I'm not yet convinced that 'len' as a keyword has
that much benefit for us.

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
7/03/2005 11:07:42 AM
March 07, 2005
Re: Another try: "len" instead of length
Derek Parnell wrote:

>>Also it spares the problem of wasting the character $ on such a profane 
>>purpose.
> 
> Yes, the $ should be used for currency literals  ;-)

I thought I would be using € for those shortly here, but we voted no.

But I guess $ would work for the US/CA/AZ currency... Or for Perl :-)

--anders
March 08, 2005
Re: $ instead of length
"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0bbc5$2m4r$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Context free means you can parse it without looking up the
> > identifiers in the symbol table.
> [...]
>
> Do you mean this as a definition, or as an example for a grammar that
> is not context free?

It's not a formal definition, but it's a practical one.
Next ›   Last »
3 4 5 6 7
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home