[m-rev.] field syntax (was: smart recompilation)

[Fergus Henderson]

On 03-Jul-2001, David Overton <dmo at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> 
> A useful feature I've found of the current syntax is the ability to
> write complex, nested function calls in a much easier to read
> manner.  E.g. something like
> 
> 	X1 = baz(W, bar(Z, foo(Y, X)))
> 
> can be written as
> 
> 	X1 = X ^ foo(Y) ^ bar(Z) ^ baz(W)
> 
> which, IMHO, can be much easier to read.  It shows that the
> programmer's intent is to  start with X and apply the three
> transformations to it, in the order specified, to get X1.
> 
> Maybe you could argue that it is confusing to allow this sort of use
> of the syntax.

That is exactly what I would argue.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------