Re: [q-lang-users] Q 7.2 RC1 Issue 2: Notation

[Keith T. <kaz...@ea...>]

Albert Graef wrote:
>So where do we go from here? I'd be happy with both "over" and "%"
>Should we have a poll now?

It is clear to me now why dogs typically have only _one_ tail to wag (or to be wagged by ;-)

Suggestion #1: please, use "%" and not "over" or any other perlish "line noise".

Suggestion #2: whenever this kind of situation occurs in the future, if at all possible, follow the naming / parsing / semantic traditions of Haskell / *ML / functional / logic programming languages.

Q is Q, and should remain Q. In terms of heritage, Q has more in common with the language families / traditions that I have mentioned in my "Suggestion #2", than Lisp / Scheme, and (especially) C / Perl / etc.

Not Suggestion #3, just thinking out loud: If Q has to be transformed (wagged) into following the path of another (unrelated) language, then please make it _Ruby_. Despite the fact that Ruby has some perlish nonsense, it is (for the most part) a clean, orderly language.

Suggestion #3: Q is Q. Where new users may come from should never be the reason for changing anything. OTOH, the Principle of Least Surprise (ref. Ruby) is a _Good Thing_ (ref. Martha Stewart). Thus, Suggestion #2.

Okay, I will shut up now. But I think that I may have held my tongue too long...

Cheers,
Keith