From: Jeremy R. <jr...@fa...> - 2004-08-06 21:52:18
|
Oren: > Less desperate notion: Use '!' for 'false'. Its use as a "not" operator is > well established in many programming languages, so it is "reasonably" > mnemonic. It requires a slight twisting of the rules, since '!' is the > indicator for tags. However, since tags can never be empty, a '!' by itself > is not ambiguous: > > true: + > false: ! > > Hmmm. Not as nice as using '-', but not _too_ bad. Also, keep in mind this is > merely the canonical form, similar to ~ for null. Both null and booleans we > also support alternate presentations which are English based - null, > true/yes/on, false/no/off. > > I think I like this. What do people feel? ...Thinking a bit outside the box: no need to restrict yourself to one-character, neh? true: = false: != or true: + false: {} (Which might make you grumpy for other reasons, I realize.) ...Just trying to stimulate thought; don't have any arguments to support the notion. :) |
From: Oren Ben-K. <or...@be...> - 2004-08-07 07:49:21
|
On Saturday 07 August 2004 00:58, Jeremy Rice wrote: > ...Thinking a bit outside the box: no need to restrict yourself to > one-character, neh? Right. We could use something like: true: .+ false: .- or: true: ++ false: -- or > true: = > false: != Bit none of the above seems elegant/intuitive, somehow. > or > > true: + > false: {} > > (Which might make you grumpy for other reasons, I realize.) Like {} meaning an empty mapping :-) > ...Just trying to stimulate thought; don't have any arguments to support > the notion. :) No, its a good notion. Its just that none of the two-character combinations I came up with seems to "work". Let's keep this on the back burner until Clark returns and make a decision then. Maybe someone will hit on a brilliant idea in the meanwhile. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki |
From: Brian I. <in...@tt...> - 2004-08-07 15:44:12
|
On 07/08/04 10:49 +0300, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > On Saturday 07 August 2004 00:58, Jeremy Rice wrote: > > ...Thinking a bit outside the box: no need to restrict yourself t= o > > one-character, neh? >=20 > Let's keep this on the back burner until Clark returns and make a d= ecision=20 > then. Maybe someone will hit on a brilliant idea in the meanwhile. true: | false: O true: / false: \ true: S false: $ true: 8 false: % true: / false: X true: =3D false: # true: ^ false: A true: =E2=98=BA false: =E2=98=BB Cheers, Brian |
From: Oren Ben-K. <or...@be...> - 2004-08-07 16:04:31
|
On Saturday 07 August 2004 18:31, Brian Ingerson wrote: > true: | > false: O Too cute. The 'O' is too much of a string, and with the inevitable confusio= n=20 with 0 - I don't think so. > true: / > false: X Make it: true: + false: x Not that bad, actually. However, 'x' is a letter, and is used by itself as= an=20 identifier: coordinate: x That said, if there's overwhelming support for 'x' over '!', I'll go with i= t. > various line noise Obscure, some are inherently invalid (using '#'). > true: =E2=98=BA > false: =E2=98=BB This displays as line noise in my e-mail client. And VIM. I wouldn't be abl= e=20 to type it even if I did see it. Unicode just isn't there yet. The +/! combination is still the less bad option. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki |
From: Tim P. <ti...@po...> - 2004-08-08 14:39:48
|
On Sat, 2004-08-07 at 16:31, Brian Ingerson wrote: > > Let's keep this on the back burner until Clark returns and make a dec= ision=20 > > then. Maybe someone will hit on a brilliant idea in the meanwhile. >=20 > true: | > false: O > true: / > false: \ > true: S > false: $ > true: 8 > false: % > true: / > false: X > true: =3D > false: # > true: ^ > false: A > true: =E2=BA > false: =E2=BB Absolute bloody genius!!! |
From: T. O. <tra...@ru...> - 2004-08-10 22:29:47
|
Common COBOL practice of old true: 1 false: . You would see strings of these for bit flags, 11...1.1..1 Can't use the 1, but a few other things could work just as well like / maybe. Just thought I throw that out there. T. |
From: Sean O'D. <se...@ce...> - 2004-08-10 22:45:30
|
On Saturday 07 August 2004 00:49, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > On Saturday 07 August 2004 00:58, Jeremy Rice wrote: > > ...Thinking a bit outside the box: no need to restrict yourself to > > one-character, neh? > > Right. We could use something like: > > true: .+ > false: .- I think true/false works well enough. If a language to describe implicit schemas comes along, then perhaps worry about mapping true/false to other languages or neutralizing it with '==' and '<>' values. Anyway, I think of implicits as a function of the loader. It's great to have it in the spec, and quite handy when they load automatically in Ruby, but perhaps the base spec should just be map/seq/string, and implicit types should be up to the loading mechanism and the programmers who invoke it. Sean O'Dell |
From: Oren Ben-K. <or...@be...> - 2004-08-15 17:29:19
|
On Wednesday 11 August 2004 01:45, Sean O'Dell wrote: > I think true/false works well enough. If a language to describe implicit > schemas comes along, then perhaps worry about mapping true/false to other > languages or neutralizing it with '==' and '<>' values. Well, yes, but its nice to have a language-agnostic format. I think + and ! are OK for that. At any rate... > Anyway, I think of implicits as a function of the loader. It's great to > have it in the spec, and quite handy when they load automatically in Ruby, > but perhaps the base spec should just be map/seq/string, and implicit types > should be up to the loading mechanism and the programmers who invoke it. That's the case already, We are NOT discussing how to define bool in the spec - the spec doesn't define the !bool tag in any way. We are discussing how to define the !bool tag in the type respository, which serves as a recommended set of tags for the loader you mention. Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki |
From: Brian I. <in...@tt...> - 2004-08-08 00:52:13
|
On 07/08/04 19:04 +0300, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > On Saturday 07 August 2004 18:31, Brian Ingerson wrote: > > true: ??=F7 > > false: ??=BB > This displays as line noise in my e-mail client. And VIM. I wouldn'= t be able=20 > to type it even if I did see it. Unicode just isn't there yet. This is the only point worth responding as I was just kidding. Completely. :P Anyway I wrote the email in vim (inside mutt). I cut and pasted a whi= te smiley and a black smiley, and they displayed fine as wide characters= . Now they also appear as garbage to me now. Something happened along they way. Unicode seems harder to round trip than YAML ;) But my point to you is that vim is all up to date unicode-wise. It ma= y be a bear getting your terminal and your input methods all set up right, but vim is a champ here. You should really check it out my heb= rew speaking friend. :) hmmmm true: :) false: :( Thoughts? ~_~ Cheers, Brian |