On 19 f=E9vr. 09, at 10:21, David A. Black wrote:

>   This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be =20
> readable text,
>   while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-=20
> aware tools.
> Hi --
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Juan Zanos wrote:
>
>>
>> On 18 f=E9vr. 09, at 18:43, Bill Kelly wrote:
>>
>>> From: "James Britt" <james.britt / gmail.com>
>>>> I have my own preference, and have so far found arguments to the =20=

>>>> contrary unsatisfying because they are usually based on previous =20=

>>>> use of parens in other languages.    (The most interesting =20
>>>> suggestion I've heard is to use the parens to indicate if the =20
>>>> return value of the method is useful or not. That is, whether a  =20=

>>>> method is intended as a statement or an expression.)
>>>> I'm truly puzzled when people get their back up at the =20
>>>> suggestion that their style preference is based on bias obtained =20=

>>>> from previous exposure to other language, conscious or not.  I =20
>>>> don't think too many people are deliberately thinking, "I want =20
>>>> to make this look like [C|Java|Perl|PHP]", but surely there is =20
>>>> *some* bias based on experience.
>>> I agree there is some bias based on experience, as I went through
>>> a phase about 18 years ago as a C programmer, deliberately
>>> memorizing the operator precedence table and taking small delight
>>> in being able to write expressions devoid of any parens except
>>> those strictly necessary to the parser.
>>> Note, also, that my first language was Forth, which I programmed
>>> in for seven years--initially as a hobbyist, then professionally--
>>> before I learned C.
>>> Forth doesn't need parens for anything... ( they're comment =20
>>> delims. )
>>> However, I'm not sure my Forth experience played a role in my
>>> temporary dalliance with extreme paren minimalism in C.  At the
>>> time, I felt memorizing the operator precedence table and making
>>> use of that knowledge by minimizing use of parens was sort of a
>>> natural course to take for someone intent on mastering the
>>> language.
>>> Eventually one of my co-workers told me he had trouble reading
>>> my code.  Initially my (private) reaction was, this guy isn't
>>> serious about his craft!  He really ought to learn the language.
>>> Thankfully I got past that phase eventually.
>>> My current bias based on experience is that when reading code,
>>> my brain does frequently prefer more parens than are strictly
>>> necessary to the parser.
>>
>> One of the things that confuses this discussion is that some =20
>> people are talking about the use of parentheses with regard to =20
>> operator precedence rules and others are discussing far more =20
>> arbitrary and questionable usages such as in declaring and calling =20=

>> functions.   I think it's telling that such a seemingly minor =20
>> complexity is cause for confusion.
>
> I don't think there's any confusion, just (rather trivially, in the
> overall scheme of things) different practices.
>
>
> David
>
> --=20
> David A. Black / Ruby Power and Light, LLC
> Ruby/Rails consulting & training: http://www.rubypal.com
> Coming in 2009: The Well-Grounded Rubyist (http://manning.com/black2)
>
> Ruby Training Atlanta! April 1-3, http://www.entp.com/training/=20
> atlanta09

I haven't heard any different practices with regard to parenthesis =20
and operator precedence in this discussion.   Am I wrong about this?  =20=

And with regard to operator precedence it doesn't sound like there =20
are any unique issues with Ruby.   Well, other than the fact that you =20=

can create new operators with Ruby and you can't in most languages.  =20
But nobody has mentioned that feature.

Cheers,
Juan=