[erlang-questions] Re: erlang improvement - objective c (or smalltalk) syntax
Fri Jun 5 00:56:20 CEST 2009
It would be interesting to see whether 100-200 lines of code transcribed
to this style would be more or less confusing than the original.
For sure, it would lead to a whole lot more typing of RSI-producing
Personally, I think the problem would be better solved with an IDE that
when you hover over the function name in question it shows up a tip such
as "do_something(Scale, PreserveAspect, Width, Height)" ... a bit like
in Eclipse/Java. This would address the real problem for me, which isn't
the ambiguity of the code (it's not ambiguous), but rather the limited
capacity of our unenhanced biological brains.
Tony Arcieri wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Steve Davis
> < <mailto:>>
> But then -- won't you now have to remember (or consult the docs for)
> the valid tagnames?
> Yes, to which I responded:
> "Personally I think it's a lot easier to remember text labels for
> arguments than it is specific (and inconsistent) orderings."
> Also, taking a looking at the example given:
> string:substring(Str, I, J)
> ...isn't this a straw man with intentionally badly named variables?
> Yes, that's true when you're passing variables. That's why I gave an
> example with values instead.
> With my example:
> do_something(true, true, 360, 120)
> you *COULD* get the same effect by binding to throw-away variables:
> do_something(_Scale=true, _PreserveAspect=true, _Width=360, _Height=120)
> but oh my is that tedious and ugly compared to:
> do_something(scale:true preserve_aspect:true width:360 height:120)
> which has the added benefit of arbitrary argument ordering.
> Tony Arcieri
> medioh.com <http://medioh.com>
More information about the erlang-questions