On 18 f=E9vr. 09, at 10:00, Michal Suchanek wrote:

> 2009/2/18 Juan Zanos <juan_zanos / talkhouse.com>:
>
>> Good point.  Syntax isn't all there is to readability.   But it =20
>> does have
>> some effect.
>>
>> In this case the parenthesis don't make anything inherently more =20
>> readable
>> and aren't helpful in resolving the nonsense names.  The =20
>> parenthesis are
>> only meaningful if you already know what they mean.  Readability =20
>> arguments
>> are often tainted by experience with previous languages.   And it =20
>> must be
>> remembered that no programmer is born knowing a previous programming
>> language.  If we insist, implicitly or otherwise, that readability =20=

>> means
>> that something looks like 'C' or Java or any other language then =20
>> we place
>> limits on how much we can simplify syntax.  I'd actually say that =20
>> each
>> example with parenthesis requires a lot more explanation of why =20
>> they are
>> their, what they mean, what are the syntax rules that govern them, =20=

>> etc.
>>
>
> Parentheses are traditionally used to group things together. If you
> have things that are logically linked together but do not visually
> appear so then adding parentheses which are not required might help
> you to make the code more readable.
>
> This has nothing to do with other programming languages, you should
> have learned that in elementary school during your math classes.
>
> Thanks
>
> Michal
>


Michal,

Did you look at the message to which I was replying?   Were =20
parentheses being used to group things together?  No.  They were =20
not.   They were being used to distinguish a single argument from a =20
function name.   In what elementary school should I have learned that =20=

use of parentheses?

Cheers,
Juan=