From: joel de guzman (isis-tech_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-01 19:54:16
> > What value is there in paralleling the math domain, since it is
> > unrelated to the grammar domain? On the other hand, the string domain
> > and grammar domain are somewhat closely related. Since a + b means
> > concatenation for strings, a + b seems logical for concatenation in a
> > grammar.
There's no logical value true. But how could we justify
a certain syntax? One way is to look back and see how
things were done and parallel these if possible.
I see now that we cannot possibly view the syntax issue
in a logical perspective. This issue is very subjective.
It's not about right or wrong. It's about like or dislike.
I remember how some mathematicians objected to
= for assignment. i = i+1; is not logically correct.
The Pascal family used the :=, but the C family
continued with the =.
I tried for example to find logic behind my dislike for +
for concatenation. Addition is *not* concatenation, I
asserted. Addition implies a + b = b + a. Commutative.
I opted for a non-commutative operator. That was one
of the reason for Spirit's use of >>, after all I believe
arrows clearly denote sequencing.
> I'm fine with +, but Joel has been pushing <<, which I hate.
> I'm suggesting * as a compromise. Or else we wait for Bjarne's
> overloaded white space proposal to be accepted ;->
Now I ask. Why do you dislike the >> ?
a >> b.... b follows an a in sequence
Have a nice day,
Joel de Guzman
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk