home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!torn!csd.unb.ca!k3mi
- From: k3mi@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Brian d'Auriol)
- Subject: Re: occam
- Message-ID: <1992Aug12.133216.23941@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>
- Organization: University of New Brunswick
- References: <2490@news.cerf.net>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:32:16 GMT
- Lines: 49
-
- In article <2490@news.cerf.net> jcbhrb@nic.cerf.net (Jacob Hirbawi) writes:
- >(3) Is it really elegant to write this:
- >
- > IF
- > var1 < 1.0 (REAL32)
- > SEQ
- > var1 := 2.0 (REAL32)
- > var2 := 2.0 (REAL32)
- > TRUE
- > SKIP
- >
- > instead of If( var1 < 1.0 ) Seq{var1 = 2.0;var2 = 2.0;}
- >
- >Don't get me wrong; Occam has many innovative features; it just seems to
- >me that a more sophisticated parser for the syntax would have gone a long
- >way towards making it more popular -- and a long way towards keeping
- >irritable people like me quieter ;-) .
- >
-
- Ok, but I would ***MUCH*** rather the first syntax for a folding editor.
- see below....
-
- IF
- var1 < 1.0 (REAL32)
- ... process XYZ
- TRUE
- SKIP
-
- ... an if with no idea of *structure*
-
- In general the IF follows the syntax of a tagged protocol. In both cases,
- the following is very easy to read.
-
- IF
- condition 1
- ... proc 1
- condition 2
- ... proc 2
- condition n
- ... proc n
- guard
- ... proc guard
-
-
- In short, I wonder if the extended syntax of Occam (esp. not free formatted)
- assists in the coding with a folding editor.
- Brian d'Auriol
-
-
-