wnoise at ofb.net
Mon Oct 30 03:47:26 EST 2006
On 2006-10-26, Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 2006-10-25 at 20:57-0000 Aaron Denney wrote:
>> On 2006-10-25, Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > No. A small alteration to the lexical syntax for the sake of
>> > improved readability seems perfectly justifiable as long as
>> > it doesn't make the lexical syntax /significantly/ more
>> > complicated or harder to learn.
>> Sure. But some of us don't find it terribly readable.
> I'm not sure what you are saying here. Assessing readability
> by introspection is terribly unreliable. Unfamiliarity with
> the presentation of numbers with underlines is likely to
> make them feel a bit awkward to begin with, but habituation
> is likely to change that.
Fair enough, I don't actually find it less readable, merely quite ugly.
I might indeed get used to it.
>> I think the ~~ operator hack gets 90% of the "benefit" for
>> those who want it.
> I thought my earlier message adequately demonstrated that it
> does /not/.
You demonstrated some corner cases that weren't convincing at all.
> Another case: if you change âsquare
> 123479010987â to âsquare 123_479_010_987â to improve
> readability it still means the same thing. If you change it
> to âsquare 123~~479~~010~~987â it doesn't.
This is a bit more convincing.
More information about the Haskell-prime