From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1I0XPE-0003E9-2g for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:41:36 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l5J6ebTw020268; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:40:37 GMT Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.177]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l5J6cmOq018010 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:38:48 GMT Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id p76so711337pyb for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:38:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=i4c76cc3RUki8ORXpFpAi0FQ7wseaJWsQ7qWQygffOeQwAswOztQl4RNom3Ub0xnKqB0IaVHDg+76VaOmxPcAvxY4+OQ/i397Kn90NJFPx5QdB1TJBC7uVCo/opUGCUJoTy5vGViVHVw8oKPLVdtiGaJWV9aUUoGAQhM21P4q/Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=CJM/4pJMuvSFFGOrGtf3ta43nJJwbV0/7TI1VY0NRomAf1HwIQfazkASdQml7FLMs/IE6Ke1tUesTv49s9FuF3mAH/DFvSoOWigu3nZYKsBJeZIADILTVjgwPmMI0E+hgNnXlRORLc7Q6trTuThQvqbupafQE7QjBG34/KIV0V0= Received: by 10.65.22.9 with SMTP id z9mr10795960qbi.1182235127798; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:38:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.251.15 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:38:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8cd1ed20706182338k27887cc4t8dfb3f744dbbd162@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:38:47 +1200 From: "Kent Fredric" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: EAPI-1 (or >1, perhaps) Proposal: AND Dependencies In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4671DCEF.7080009@gmail.com> <20070615120051.4f35ea2c@snowflake> <46727BE3.5090105@gentoo.org> <20070615125642.2dcffcd7@snowflake> <8cd1ed20706172347t5014395bg5fdccfc4adcd466e@mail.gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 8b113e25-0501-4496-b27b-9fd603f4774c X-Archives-Hash: d56ef5ff7d386d23dea9961a17f72d21 On 6/19/07, Steve Long wrote: > Kent Fredric wrote: > > If you can, try integrate a name based syntax into the requirement. > > using decorative characters alone may have their uses, but there are > > only so many you can use, and so many combinations you can create > > before all your code starts looking like perl's acme eyedrops. I say > > name based, because this allows some degree of permitting forward > > development & enhancement without majorly breaking an existing system > > :) > > > Wow that all sounds mega: er what does it mean? ;) I mean, can you give > examples of the syntax please? I'm guessing and instead of && but what > about (..) Is that going to be line-based? (LISP brackets are very annoying > imo.) Plot summary: Limitation of symbol oriented commands: !@#$%^&*()-+~`[]:"<>,./?\| By the time your in the want for more than 30 general features, your starting to have nasty syntax like this: (!#$ 1.4.6) By the time you want to get something practical done, you've got big screenfulls of non-human readable (well, not in the normal sense ) syntax which you need to frequently RTFM just to work out what each esoteric combination of symbols does. I'm merely suggesting that we have some room for a syntax+keyword system ( which is both easier to parse, and easier to program, and reduces the volume of 'wtf is that new syntax or somebody making a typo?' for old revisions and makes it obvious to the parser 'no, thats not a syntax error, he merely referred to a module we ain't got yet ' ) Maybe the limitations of bash programming are not conducive to that desire tho, but if symbol based programming was all that wonderful we'd probably have more than 255 characters in the ANSI spec ( I for one, don't know of any languages where the actual syntax requires Unicode, at least for any purpose other than internationalization ) Plot Summary Summary: Future Proof, so that its easier to make stuff backwards compatible later. Plot Summary Summary Summary: ......yeah. > > > ( im not much of a lisper, but lisp a lot of functionality for the > > cost of very minimal symbol abuse . .im not saying we should use lisp > > syntax, but maybe a page from their book in terms of expandability ) > > Yeah #haskell has nice ideas too.. > > > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list > > -- Kent ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x| print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@gma.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}' -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list