[679] in Coldmud discussion meeting

Re: assexp op

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thu Mar 9 13:38:25 1995 )

To: Quinn <quinn@access.mountain.net>
Cc: cadams@weather.brockport.edu, crag@serial.mit.edu, coldstuff@MIT.EDU,
        nop@batu.ccs.neu.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Mar 95 12:30:15 EST."
             <199503091730.MAA20505@Access.Mountain.Net> 
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 95 13:33:51 -0500
From: Jay Carlson <nop@ccs.neu.edu>

> I like '<-', but it really doesn't imply expression anymore than
>  an equals sign does.  I'd suggest '<>', since its easy to type
>  and kind of implies "we are not both equal and we want the whole
>  world to know it, that is why we are pointing outward."

But assignment really isn't symmetric.  There's a deep difference 
between lvalues (the stuff on the left hand side) and rvalues (the 
stuff on the right hand side).

> As for the local method character, instinctively I like ',' since
> it's a less emphatic period.  

Been using @d lately? :-)

> But I don't know the repercussions of using a comma in such a way.

My brain's too fried to figure out if this language is in LALR(1), I 
had a midterm on code generation today, we already had our test on 
parsers, I shouldn't have to know this any more etc etc etc.

Anyway, I really wish you wouldn't use , for this.  I read , as a 
separator.  Actually, I don't like .foo much as a call-on-self 
syntax, because it's too easy for my eyes to skip over that little 
one-pixel dot, since . isn't a separator in that case either. 

> blah blah blah

Yeah.

Jay Carlson
nop@io.com    nop@ccs.neu.edu

Flat text is just *never* what you want.   ---stephen p spackman