[711] in Coldmud discussion meeting

root meeting help first first in chain previous in chain previous next next in chain last in chain last

Re: more blah blah blah

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tue Mar 14 18:50:37 1995 )

From: brandon@millville.declab.usu.edu
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 16:40:03 -0700

< I don't intend to release a ColdMUD with an assignment expression. Brandon
< will be releasing my change to his ColdX server.

Yes, I've been slown down a little, with the quarter ending.  I'll hopefully
also have dynamic function binding in the next version as well.

< Based on these grounds I
< think arguments based on 'C-- should be like C' are moot...or something. I
< don't think we should restrict ourselves this way.

On a side tangent, the language 'C--' has existed since 1989 and is a mix
of C and PC Assembly.  THIS is why I really don't like calling Cold*'s driver
language C--, since it isn't. Archie for "C--" if you want to find it...

< The point is, there is no assignment operator at all in this new language. Of
< course, time will tell whether this is a good thing or not, but let's not do
< things just because it's familiar. Let's do things because they suit our
< needs. Does a = 1 mean anythng at all without some context? No. We are
< deciding the context now and we are debating how we want assignment to look.

Well, Joule is a totally different language concept.  C already is left
oriented, and ColdC is based on C.  However, because it is based on C doesn't
(in my opinion) mean we need to worry too much about being like C.  If we
wanted to be like C, we would be C.

< We should make the decisions based on goals and needs rather than history.

Sounds good to me.

< All this rambling is to add weight to my assertion that '<-' is the best
< best operator to use for assignment in the ColdX server. Its meaning agrees
< fairly well with its visual structure. It does not in any way appear to be
< a comparison. It suggests modification (through motion).

I know that people have already stated what they would like to see as an
assignment operator.  What I'd like is if interested parties who have an
opinion in this matter email me with what you would like to see it be
(either '<-' or ':=' or even '='), and also, if you feel vehement enough,
what you would definitely NOT like to see, and why.