Dependence on Programming Experts

[Alex Tweedly]

Rob Cozens wrote:

> Alex & Moi:
>
>>> I don't see what would break existing syntax.
>>
>>
>> The example I gave, which demonstrates techniques in many of my 
>> existing stacks.
>
>
>
> Sorry,now I've lost focus.

Yeah, it's been a long thread :-)
Not helped by me saying "container" when I should have said "property" - 
sorry about that.

>
> The proposal to have the Rev engine interpret "x=5" to mean "put 5 
> into x" instead of its current interpertation, "does x equal 5?" would 
> break existing syntax.

No, it wouldn't.

Current syntax (such as your example from SDB) uses an 'equality' 
expression in the context where an expression is required.
The (proposed) syntax uses a (perhaps identical set of characters) as a 
statement where a statement is required.

There is no existing case (AFAIK) where *either* a boolean expression 
and a statement could appear, and hence there is no ambiguous case - 
anywhere that set of characters can appear can be *at most* one of an 
expression or a statement..

If there was any context where either could appear, there would be an 
ambiguity - but there isn't.


-- 
Alex Tweedly       http://www.tweedly.net



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/387 - Release Date: 12/07/2006