Re: It Hurts When I Do This

On Apr 18, 11:27=A0am, nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Richard Maine) wrote:
> GaryScott <garylsc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>http://softwareblogs.intel.com/2008/03/31/doctor-it-hurts-when-i-do-t...
>
> I don't think I've seen that article before, but I think it is well done
> (as I'd expect from Steve). I also quite agree with its points.
>
> > But we NEED a syntax that means "the entire array". =A0Code should be
> > self do***enting.
>
> We do have a syntax that means the entire array - the array name. True,
> the syntax doesn't directly tell you that it is an array, but it does
> tell you that it is the entire of whatever the thing so named is
> declared to be.
>
> While I'm a big fan of writing clear and largely self-do***enting code,
> I disagree that it helps to use a special notation to indicate that
> something is an array. Why pick on arrayness in particular? Down that
> path lies special notations for all attributes. Might as well go back to
> implicit typing, and disallow overriding the implicit type; then you can
> look at the variable name and know the type.
>
> Let's throw in conventions for all the other attributes as well. We need
> a syntax that tells you that something is the whole of a derived type.
> So as not to pick only on the "newfangled" f90 features, don't we need a
> syntax to tell you that something is all of a complex variable? Etc.
> Heck, let's throw out all declarations and encode everything in the
> syntax of referencing a variable. Seems to me like it is the same
> principle.
>
> I think it a mistake to throw all this kind of thing in the language.
> They aren't adding extra functionality - just notational convention. I
> don't see the point in picking on arrays in partucular.
>
> To the extent that one is just looking for a notational convention, we
> already have something suitable in the language. You've noted it; the
> variable name. Yes, it is up to the programmer has to select appropriate
> names. But then it would also be up to the programmer to use any such
> new language syntax... unless you incompatibly made it mandatory,
> invalidating all existing code that uses whole arrays.

It doesn't logically follow that to ask for a syntax for arrayness
requires a syntax for any other attributes.  The article makes it
quite clear that it is a common thought process among programmers and
a common pitfall.  It definitely should have been done right the first
time, but no, I wouldn't make it mandatory at this point.

>
> --
> Richard Maine =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| Good judgement
come=
s from experience;
> email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
> domain: summertriangle =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0-- Mark Twain