Re: [q-lang-users] A proposal to adopt Python tuple syntax

[Tim H. <q...@st...>]

Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...> writes:

> Hi, Tim,
> 
> > I've not really been bitten by it except as a result of programmer error -
> > I might get temporarily confused whether I want to write
> >     map (lambda (N) (N+1)) [1..10]
> >                 ^ ^
> > or not (and in this case, not), but that's it.
> 
> Yup, that's actually the foo(99) thing in disguise. In my experience
> that's actually the most common source of confusion. So that speaks in
> favour of John's argument. I agree that if you really have to constantly
> think about those situations, then it should be changed.

OK.

[snip]
> > At first blush, I don't mind (and might even favour) having a different
> > syntax for forcing something to be a tuple - say use [] for lists, () for
> > parenthetical purposes *only*, which leaves <> or {} for tuples?
> 
> <...> doesn't work, e.g., how should something like < 5 > 3 > 1 be
> parsed, is it ((< 5 >) 3) > 1 or (< (5 > 3) >) 1 ? 

Very good question. OK, scrap that for a lark :)

> Concerning the curly braces, it might be a good idea to keep {...} for
> possible future extensions (Haskell-style records come to my mind). 

You read my mind ... or at least the other mail I just fired-off, partly
inspired by this idea. 

> So I'd actually prefer to keep using the parentheses for tuples, John and
> I even agree on that point. ;-)
> 
> Tim, if I understood you correctly, you don't really have any objections
> against the current notation, but wouldn't mind a change either. Is that
> correct? Could you live with that "trailing comma" thingie?

Would the change *require* trailling comma, or just permit it on the
grounds of forcing something to be a tuple?

Not that I'd object either way, really. No complaints here, it does seem
less insane than abusing <> for the purpose :)

~Tim
-- 
<http://spodzone.org.uk/>