Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
61 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?

Coda Highland


On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:16 AM Jeff <[hidden email]> wrote:
03.06.2019, 13:43, "Rodrigo Azevedo" <[hidden email]>:
> Alternative, we can __band them:
> local & constant = 5
> local & catched = 10 -- alternative name, because all 'local' are
> lexically 'scoped' and 'toclose' is ugly.

why "&" ? it is already used for bitwise AND. what about "$" ?



The whole point is THAT it's being treated as a bitwise AND, combining together various flags in the definition. I don't like it, and I thinkĀ @ is better if we're discussing different syntaxes, but I get why it's being suggested.

Side note, "catched" isn't valid English, it ought to be "caught".

/s/ AdamĀ 
1234