Why we should remove {} from Squeak

Stephen Pair spair at advantive.com
Mon Oct 1 14:12:56 UTC 2001


Andreas Raab wrote:
> > Having operators is useful too, I would like to have operators too 
> > because I prefer to type
> >    2 + 3 * 6 than 2 + (3 * 6)
> > and because this is MATH and MATH are right!
> >
> > I hope you see my point.
> 
> If your point is that we should not have appropriate operator 
> precedences, then I don't see it. I find absolutely nothing 
> wrong with them. There are plenty of language (Prolog, for 
> example) dealing with operator precedence pretty well and at 
> the same time not restricting people to use only built-in 
> operators. So actually I agree - I want operator precedences too! ;-)

I think we should be careful on this slippery slope...as you point out,
there is a delicate balance between simplicity and purity.  Many
languages have been ruined by adding constructs that were meant to make
things more convenient but sacrificed consistency.  I think this was
Stephane's point actually.  These constructs usually make a language
more convenient for those with a lot of experience in the language, but
much more difficult for people new to the language.  If you need proof
of this, just look at the recent thread titled "Storing and Retrieving
Points."

I'm not arguing against using mathematical precedence, just that the
idea be carefully considered.  Also, there are many mathematical
expressions that cannot be rendered in plain text.  Why not augment
Squeak with the complete language of mathematics instead?  Let's allow a
mathematical expression to be constructed using a full graphical
representation and then be dropped into a method.

- Stephen





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list