home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group92c.txt
/
000085_icon-group-sender _Sun Nov 15 10:49:26 1992.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1993-01-04
|
1KB
Received: by cheltenham.cs.arizona.edu; Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:25:18 MST
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 10:49:26 EST
From: Paul_Abrahams@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu
To: icon-group@cs.arizona.edu
Message-Id: <527502@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu>
Subject: Second thoughts on semicolons
Status: R
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@cs.arizona.edu
For a long time I've liked the Icon convention that the end of a line acts
as a semicolon unless the last token on the line is an operator. There's
no doubt that it makes programs easier to write.
But I am having some second thoughts about this convention, because I
think it hinders making programs easier to read. I don't think semicolons
at the ends of lines affect readability one way or the other, but that by
itself doesn't argue against the Icon convention. But the Icon convention
does preclude breaking an expression before rather than after an operator,
and therefore precludes the program style, which corresponds to the
mathematical conventions, where continuation lines start with an operator.
The Icon conventions are too heavily embedded in existing code for me to
suggest that they should be changed. But the downside of the Icon
convention is something that language designers should ponder.
Paul Abrahams