"Aaron" <arh14@cornell.edu> wrote in message news:3C3EF160.83AE13E3@cornell.edu...

> I'd mandate parans around loop conditions for the aforementioned clarity and intuitiveness, and allow optional blocks in try/catch for the Pavels around (blocks are already optional in most/every other construct), although I always use braces with them myself.

Yeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaah! =)

"Aaron" <arh14@cornell.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3C3EF160.83AE13E3@cornell.edu...
>[...]
> I'd mandate parans around loop conditions for the aforementioned clarity and intuitiveness, and allow optional blocks in try/catch for the Pavels around (blocks are already optional in most/every other construct), although I always use braces with them myself.

I'd mandate braces for the aforementioned clarity and intuitiveness, although I always use parans around loop conditions with them myself.

:-)

Ciao

Do you know this is called entropy - the amount of infomation that can be transfered with a given code base.

An entropy of 1 is as you indicated, random - aka white noise.  Every bit has as much meaning as the next and so a single bit error ruins the whole message.



"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:9skeha$1dh9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Pavel "EvilOne" Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:9sil27$85b$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > "Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer@iname.com> wrote in message news:9sh7p5$227v$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > > That sounds like a really great idea.  More flexible... less typing...
> one
> > > less keyword... it's great!
> >
> > This however adds additional job for the compiler of determining which blocks can potentionally throw exceptions and which can't, for optimization purposes I believe.
> >
> > Other than that, I like the idea. Could really make the program look neater, and less typing as well... kewl =)
>
>
> It does look like the try keyword is redundant. On the other hand, some redundancy is useful for:
>
> 1) catching syntax errors
> 2) putting out a reasonable error message as to what might be wrong
> 3) making it easier for a person examining the code to understand the
intent
> of it
>
> Consider this - if a language had no redundancy in it, then *any* random sequence of characters is a valid program.
>
> How much redundancy is just right is a matter of personal taste. I, for instance, find Pascal to be unbearably wordy, and Java excessively wordy.
D
> will take its cues from C and C++ on the general style of wordiness.
>
>