Re: [wish list]: `foo'

• Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 11:07:15 PDT
• From:
  Quinn <quinn@vv.com>
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Well, I understand what Pavel's saying, trying to force good programming
style on everyone and all, and that we should be throwing exceptions and
calling methods should know what exceptions are thrown, and that tracebacks
shouldn't be treated as "bugs" anymore but anticipated like the old
E_WHATEVER 'harmless' types used to be...

Still, sometimes I just wanna make my code all pretty and fit into 80 columns.

IT'S A MATTER OF TYRANNY, like Cold's early dictum that assignments ARE NOT
expressions, because too many of you silly stupid programmers fuck up and
use '=' rather than '=='.

I know what I'm doing; I just wanna do it in less space BECAUSE I'M
SYNTACTICALLY ANAL.

-Quinn

At 10:06 AM 8/1/96 PDT, Kipp the Kidd wrote:
>At 02:44 PM 7/31/96 PDT, Pavel Curtis wrote:
>>Quinn writes:
>>> It'd be cool to be able to shorthand `expr ! ANY' all the way to `expr'.
>>
>>Not doing this was an explicit design decision.  Almost always, the use of ANY
>>is a mistake; you should list the errors you actually expect to see so
that the
>>unexpected ones won't just disappear.  Since proper use of ANY is so rare, I
>>didn't want to encourage improper use by making it the default.
>
>Usually, there are two possible errors for any sane programmer's expression.
>One error is the one you are trying to avoid by the `' expression, and the
>other error would only be by a bug in the code.  Perhaps using `expr' would
>be best after the code is debugged.
>
>I believe tracebacks should not be encouraged.  I do all of my code -d
>unless I'm debugging (hence the name 'debug flag'), so I haven't used `'
>except in an eval()... But I agree with Quinn anyways... :)

• Prev: Re: [wish list]: `foo'
• Next: RE: [wish list]: `foo'
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows