[erlang-questions] eep-0012 (Extensions to comprehensions)
Fri Aug 8 04:08:17 CEST 2008
Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> It's exactly the same "problem", but do I hear lots of
> complaints about C because of it?
I gripe about it every time I get it wrong in SQL. My chances of
changing C or SQL syntax are low. Perhaps the people who complain are
those hoping one could actually *improve* it in more modern languages.
> I don't hear lots of people complaining about the fact
> that turning
> String x,
> into String x,
> results in a 1-change 2-line diff instead of a
> 1-change 1-line diff using Java.
Perhaps because people write
instead. Or perhaps because a change of this type is always accompanied
by usually-numerous related changes elsewhere, while a change in a
declaration is often close to stand-alone.
> Why will "many" people be bothered about this in Erlang,
> when they apparently aren't bothered by it in C or Java
What makes you think they're not? That they're not posting their
complaints about Java on an Erlang mailing list?
> Why is the "add one thing -> diff should be one line"
> idea so important for changes to data constructors but
> ONLY data constructors?
Because data constructors often stand alone with no further change
needed (if you're doing data-driven programming), while changes to
method declarations require changes to all the callers as well?
If I have a "list of files which should exist before I run this
function", I can add files to it without changing the code that runs
through the list. If I add "and here's the permissions the files should
have", I need to change several places in the code.
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
More information about the erlang-questions