March 11, 2005 Re: yalp (yet another length proposal) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Ben Hinkle | > I was also pretty sceptical about the usefulness of $/length/whatever. Then I started grepping around to write a post about how silly the feature is and I realized it is more common than I thought. It seemed like about 1/3 to 1/2 of indexing expressions would involve the length.
Hmm. I don't know which grep I was talking about there. The numbers weren't
that high. I think it was a majority of those involving "length" but I don't
think I grepped for all indexing expressions.
Anyway, I got the data from the CIA so it must be right ;-)
|
March 11, 2005 $; shall we declare "Time, gentlemen." ? [WAS Re: yalp (yet another length proposal)] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to John Reimer | "John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d0sdva$27g1$1@digitaldaemon.com... > Derek Parnell wrote: > >>>>Of all the alternatives, this ones seems to be a better choice. It's definitely not perfect, but perfect is hard to come by. >>> >>>Grammar correction: "Of all the alternatives, this one seems to be the best choice." :-P >> >> >> No it doesn't ;-) > > Ha! :-) Are we yet ready to agree that neither $ not _ not $length have survived enough criticism to pass, and that therefore all should be deprecated, and we should, now, move on to more significant flaws in the language. I say we all give Walter a hearty slap on the back for moving to the try-it-out paradigm, and declare this first one a success (albeit that it's a success in the negative). Matthew |
March 11, 2005 Re: $; shall we declare | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matthew | In article <d0t00q$2rl8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says... > > >"John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d0sdva$27g1$1@digitaldaemon.com... >> Derek Parnell wrote: >> >>>>>Of all the alternatives, this ones seems to be a better choice. It's definitely not perfect, but perfect is hard to come by. >>>> >>>>Grammar correction: "Of all the alternatives, this one seems to be the best choice." :-P >>> >>> >>> No it doesn't ;-) >> >> Ha! :-) > >Are we yet ready to agree that neither $ not _ not $length have survived enough criticism to pass, and that therefore all should be deprecated, and we should, now, move on to more significant flaws in the language. > >I say we all give Walter a hearty slap on the back for moving to the try-it-out paradigm, and declare this first one a success (albeit that it's a success in the negative). > >Matthew > Aye, typing out arr.length really isn't such a big hassle anyway, is it? Jon |
March 11, 2005 Re: $; shall we declare time? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matthew | Forgive me, but I didn't see much, if any, criticism of the following which was posted early on: $length $argptr $arguments $file $line $timestamp or the alternative: @length @argptr @arguments @file @line @timestamp Don't wish to drag this out any longer than it has to be, but, please remind me of the arguments against collating all such meta-tags together under one roof .. there's a number of benefits in adopting the above, right? I'm certainly not too fond of adopting a __NAME__ approach for __file__ et. al., so what are the alternatives there? And then what about _arguments and _argptr? Does this point out a problem with NG's in general? ~ perhaps all too often the bigger picture is lost to the winds? - Kris In article <d0t00q$2rl8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says... > > >"John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d0sdva$27g1$1@digitaldaemon.com... >> Derek Parnell wrote: >> >>>>>Of all the alternatives, this ones seems to be a better choice. It's definitely not perfect, but perfect is hard to come by. >>>> >>>>Grammar correction: "Of all the alternatives, this one seems to be the best choice." :-P >>> >>> >>> No it doesn't ;-) >> >> Ha! :-) > >Are we yet ready to agree that neither $ not _ not $length have survived enough criticism to pass, and that therefore all should be deprecated, and we should, now, move on to more significant flaws in the language. > >I say we all give Walter a hearty slap on the back for moving to the try-it-out paradigm, and declare this first one a success (albeit that it's a success in the negative). > >Matthew > > |
March 11, 2005 Re: $; shall we declare "Time, gentlemen." ? [WAS Re: yalp (yet another length proposal)] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matthew | On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 07:45:12 +1100, Matthew wrote: > "John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d0sdva$27g1$1@digitaldaemon.com... >> Derek Parnell wrote: >> >>>>>Of all the alternatives, this ones seems to be a better choice. It's definitely not perfect, but perfect is hard to come by. >>>> >>>>Grammar correction: "Of all the alternatives, this one seems to be the best choice." :-P >>> >>> >>> No it doesn't ;-) >> >> Ha! :-) > > Are we yet ready to agree that neither $ not _ not $length have survived enough criticism to pass, and that therefore all should be deprecated, No. > and we should, now, move on to more significant flaws in the language. Yes. > I say we all give Walter a hearty slap on the back for moving to the try-it-out paradigm, Absolutely!. > and declare this first one a success (albeit that it's a success in the negative). No. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia http://www.dsource.org/projects/build 12/03/2005 8:20:15 AM |
March 11, 2005 Re: $; shall we declare time? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Kris | On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:18:40 +0000 (UTC), Kris wrote: > Forgive me, but I didn't see much, if any, criticism of the following which was posted early on: > > $length > $argptr > $arguments > $file > $line > $timestamp > > or the alternative: > > @length > @argptr > @arguments > @file > @line > @timestamp > > Don't wish to drag this out any longer than it has to be, but, please remind me of the arguments against collating all such meta-tags together under one roof .. there's a number of benefits in adopting the above, right? > > I'm certainly not too fond of adopting a __NAME__ approach for __file__ et. al., so what are the alternatives there? And then what about _arguments and _argptr? Because they add a more consistent approach to the whole issue, I'd add my support to this type of approach. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia http://www.dsource.org/projects/build 12/03/2005 8:24:58 AM |
March 11, 2005 Re: $; shall we declare time? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Derek Parnell | Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:18:40 +0000 (UTC), Kris wrote:
>
>
>>Forgive me, but I didn't see much, if any, criticism of the following which was
>>posted early on:
>>
>>$length
>>$argptr
>>$arguments
>>$file
>>$line
>>$timestamp
>>
>>or the alternative:
>>
>>@length
>>@argptr
>>@arguments
>>@file
>>@line
>>@timestamp
>>
>>Don't wish to drag this out any longer than it has to be, but, please remind me
>>of the arguments against collating all such meta-tags together under one roof
>>.. there's a number of benefits in adopting the above, right?
>>
>>I'm certainly not too fond of adopting a __NAME__ approach for __file__ et. al.,
>>so what are the alternatives there? And then what about _arguments and _argptr?
>
>
> Because they add a more consistent approach to the whole issue, I'd add my
> support to this type of approach.
>
>
I like this stuff, too.
Lars Ivar Igesund
|
March 11, 2005 Re: $; shall we declare time? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jon Andrew | In article <d0t1h6$4og$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Jon Andrew says... > >In article <d0t00q$2rl8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says... >> >> >>"John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d0sdva$27g1$1@digitaldaemon.com... >>> Derek Parnell wrote: >>> >>>>>>Of all the alternatives, this ones seems to be a better choice. It's definitely not perfect, but perfect is hard to come by. >>>>> >>>>>Grammar correction: "Of all the alternatives, this one seems to be the best choice." :-P >>>> >>>> >>>> No it doesn't ;-) >>> >>> Ha! :-) >> >>Are we yet ready to agree that neither $ not _ not $length have survived enough criticism to pass, and that therefore all should be deprecated, and we should, now, move on to more significant flaws in the language. >> >>I say we all give Walter a hearty slap on the back for moving to the try-it-out paradigm, and declare this first one a success (albeit that it's a success in the negative). >> >>Matthew >> > >Aye, typing out arr.length really isn't such a big hassle anyway, is it? > >Jon Nope - it's not. The shorthand notation was introduced to help with templates, where having a 'tmp' for the addressed array is just not convenient. Thus, the implied 'length' was born. It is but for that purpose only, and just happened to provide for a shortcut in other ways. Would have been great other than the problems it caused :-) Frankly, I'm more concerned about the other tags (such as _argptr, __file__, etc) |
March 11, 2005 Re: $; shall we declare time? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Kris | "Kris" <Kris_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d0t1vg$9nd$1@digitaldaemon.com... > Forgive me, but I didn't see much, if any, criticism of the following > which was > posted early on: > > $length > $argptr > $arguments > $file > $line > $timestamp > > or the alternative: > > @length > @argptr > @arguments > @file > @line > @timestamp > > Don't wish to drag this out any longer than it has to be, but, please > remind me > of the arguments against collating all such meta-tags together under > one roof > .. there's a number of benefits in adopting the above, right? > > I'm certainly not too fond of adopting a __NAME__ approach for > __file__ et. al., > so what are the alternatives there? And then what about _arguments and > _argptr? > > Does this point out a problem with NG's in general? ~ perhaps all too > often the > bigger picture is lost to the winds? Well, I still think that __FILE__ is a different kind of fish to $length, but not so much as I'd be motivated to (further) argue the point. Were the consensus to be that the above $-prefixed list be representative of a general strategy for various meta-ish (meta's the wrong word, I know, given MP) things, then I can live with it, and we can move on to bigger and badder problems. |
March 11, 2005 Re: $; shall we declare time? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matthew | On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:46:19 +1100, Matthew wrote: > "Kris" <Kris_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d0t1vg$9nd$1@digitaldaemon.com... >> Forgive me, but I didn't see much, if any, criticism of the following >> which was >> posted early on: >> >> $length >> $argptr >> $arguments >> $file >> $line >> $timestamp >> >> or the alternative: >> >> @length >> @argptr >> @arguments >> @file >> @line >> @timestamp >> >> Don't wish to drag this out any longer than it has to be, but, please >> remind me >> of the arguments against collating all such meta-tags together under >> one roof >> .. there's a number of benefits in adopting the above, right? >> >> I'm certainly not too fond of adopting a __NAME__ approach for >> __file__ et. al., >> so what are the alternatives there? And then what about _arguments and >> _argptr? >> >> Does this point out a problem with NG's in general? ~ perhaps all too >> often the >> bigger picture is lost to the winds? > > Well, I still think that __FILE__ is a different kind of fish to $length, but not so much as I'd be motivated to (further) argue the point. > > Were the consensus to be that the above $-prefixed list be representative of a general strategy for various meta-ish (meta's the wrong word, I know, given MP) things, then I can live with it, and we can move on to bigger and badder problems. Okay by me. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 12/03/2005 8:57:45 AM |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation