Re: INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
- From: "William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 18:22:11 GMT
Pete,
I know that Chuck has responded to a couple of the specifics, but as I agree
with his initial post, I think what was not clear was that the "resistance" to
adding new (redundant) syntax is a POST-2002 (somewhat in that too) development.
The 2002 Standard introduced LOTS and LOTS (too much IMHO) new "syntax" - some
for things one could already do, some they couldn't.
Rightly or wrongly (I think rightly) SOME of the resistance to implementing the
'02 Standard was that it was simply "TOO BIG".
The features that you mention were all introduced in the '85 Standard or
earlier.
The '02 Standard had SOME new "redundant" features (e.g. GOBACK, partial-word
replacement, SET TO FALSE). However, it is my memory that even in the
development of that Standard there was SOME discussion that these facilities
COULD already be accomplished and did the language really need them. In these 3
cases (and possibly most others), the view was (as I recall it) that the new
syntax was "more self-documenting". I am not at all certain that ANY of them
would make it into a post-02 Standard - if they were up for discussion now.
Having said that, I do think that every possible enhancement has (and continues
to be) considered on a "case by case" basis. A (well-discussed in this forum)
feature was the addition of the "<>" operator - which DID make it into the draft
'08 Standard.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4ce5dlF15a7qgU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e3q4le$1lf5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes, as I recall it J4 was of the opinion that anything you'd want to do with
TRAILING you could accomplish with existing syntax, even if it required a
"temporary" and an extra statement.
Adding new syntax for functionality that already exists -- particularly when
the syntax for that functionality is pretty straightforward -- adds
complexity to the language without adding functional feature content, and for
that reason the suggestions to provide TRAILING were not followed.
Interesting.
That being the case...
Why was EVALUATE added to the language when IF was already there?
Why was SEARCH added when the same effect could be obtained with PERFORM?
Why was EXAMINE dropped in favour of INSPECT when they provide the same
functionality?
Why were scope delimiters added when we already had full stops?
Why was CONTINUE included when EXIT would have done?
Why was PICTURE provided in the langage when exactly the same functionality
was available with CLASS, and SIZE?
So much rhetoric, so little time... :-)
Pete.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
- References:
- INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
- From: Roger While
- Re: INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
- From: William M. Klein
- Re: INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
- From: Chuck Stevens
- Re: INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
- From: Pete Dashwood
- INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
- Prev by Date: Re: INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
- Next by Date: Re: INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
- Previous by thread: Re: INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
- Next by thread: Re: INSPECT and TRAILING syntax
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
