On 10/6/06, Kevin Olemoh <darkintent / gmail.com> wrote:
> David just because you like a given way of formatting does not mean
> that everyone else should have to use it while they are creating
> something even if they are working with you.

I'm not sure what you are asking for in that case.  How is a language
supposed to figure out what you mean unless there is a specific
construct it understands?  There has to be a specific rules for
syntax, even if it is a very simple one as with lisp.

> The points you brought up are the reason people need to be using
> comments in code not a reason for the language itself to try and
> force a method of formatting onto its users.  I can't count how many
> times i have seen code that while well formatted does not make
> nearly as much sense as it could because whoever wrote the code
> did not put in enough comments if any at all.  In the real world you
> speak of people need to actually explain themselves when others
> are going to be reading the code the formatting of the code is almost
> entirely secondary.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.  More often than
not, copious comments   are a bad code smell.  It means that your code
isn't readable enough or is hard to follow.  Try to refactor it to
make the logic cleaner instead.

> (Are you sure you actually now what you are talking about what with
> the overwhelming arrogance that you are exuding and all?)

You don't think you're being a little arrogant as well?  You come off
as somebody that is just whining because things aren't the way you'd
like them to be.  Language designers are--generally speaking--a pretty
intelligent group of people.  Just because you don't like C's ternary
operator doesn't mean it was a design mistake.

> I should have said that the ternary operator is a conditional
> expression that often serves the same or very simillar functinction as
> a "traditional" if statement in c/c++

Actually it doesn't.  The ternary operator ?: is very different from
if/then in C because C, unlike Ruby, distinguishes between statements
and expressions.

> However my real point was that requiring things like that which can be
> very difficult to read is a mistake on the part of the people creating
> the syntax of a language and that point still stands.
> The only person who is flaming anyone here is you my friend.

This is purely an opinion.  I find the construct to be sufficiently readable.


-- 
Lou.