2009/2/18 Juan Zanos <juan_zanos / talkhouse.com>:
>
> On 18 févr. 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 does have
>>> some effect.
>>>
>>> In this case the parenthesis don't make anything inherently more readable
>>> and aren't helpful in resolving the nonsense names.  The parenthesis are
>>> only meaningful if you already know what they mean.  Readability
>>> arguments
>>> are often tainted by experience with previous languages.   And it must be
>>> remembered that no programmer is born knowing a previous programming
>>> language.  If we insist, implicitly or otherwise, that readability means
>>> that something looks like 'C' or Java or any other language then we place
>>> limits on how much we can simplify syntax.  I'd actually say that each
>>> example with parenthesis requires a lot more explanation of why they are
>>> their, what they mean, what are the syntax rules that govern them, 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 parentheses
> being used to group things together?  No.  They were not.   They were being
> used to distinguish a single argument from a function name.   In what
> elementary school should I have learned that use of parentheses?
>

I have taken your "each example with parenthesis" as referring to the
parenthesis discussion on this thread in general, not the particular
examples with defining methods.

For that the 'def' keyword should be distinctive enough.

Thanks

Michal