Re: [q-lang-users] The implicit operator in Q

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

>> Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...> wrote: 
>
> There are several ways to resolve this inconsistency:
>
>1. forbid a variable as the head element of the toplevel expression on 
>the lhs of an equation

>2. never reduce a function application with a "const" in the head, even 
>if there's a rule which allows this
>
>3. forget about "const" and allow rules with constants in the head (but 
>this means that an equation like "0=1;" would be valid Q again)
>
>4. be happy that Q still leaves some dirty tricks to be discovered by 
>the master Q programmer ;-)
>
>What do you think?


Since you asked... ;-)

1. Does this formerly hidden "feature" violate PoLS (principle of least surprise)? -- Not in my mind.

2. Do we want Q to take after Java, and try to keep programmers from doing stupid things? -- Again, not in my mind.

The above considerations lead me to favour option 4.

Cheers,
Keith 
 
BTW, it's just as hot where I am... =(