Ah, the sacrificial underscore. I like the left arrow and the up arrow a lot, but I see how this could mess one up when one has code with underscores in it.
I don't have any code with underscores in it. They don't seem to fit the language stylistically to my eye.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Levente Uzonyi leves@elte.hu wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, J. Vuletich (mail lists) wrote:
Quoting tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org:
On 24-02-2014, at 10:52 AM, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@ gmail.com> wrote:
Though being reserved for return statements, the upArrow ^ could
perfectly be accepted as a character composing a binary selector, like the verticalBar | already is.
[snip]
What do you think?
I think that it would be a massive cognitive overload when reading
code. The return signifier needs to be a unique artefact, whatever it is.
foo bar blah ^ ribbet factorial
Quick - is that correct code or should there be a '.' in front of the ^ ? Will it crash the spaceship?
I wish we still had a proper up arrow rather than a caret, not to mention the proper left arrow assign instead of the nonsensical Pascal :=.
StrikeFont allInstancesDo: [ :each | each useLeftArrow ]
That solves the problem, but it makes another. We lose underscore character with that change. :)
Levente
:)
tim
-- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor and when was the last time you needed one? -- Tom Cargin
Cheers, Juan Vuletich