Some questions on Slate syntax
water at tunes.org
Mon Mar 28 15:23:40 PST 2005
Oops. This is a reply from a couple of days ago when my workstation
couldn't send mail temporarily - I've already answered this in another
email, and in a better way.
On Mar 26, 2005, at 4:38 PM, Brian Rice wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2005, at 4:15 PM, David Hopwood wrote:
>> Bill Sun wrote:
>>> 1. Why 0-based arrays?
> Bill gave most of the good answers for this. We've also adapted
> Smalltalk-80's control-flow methods for iteration so that checking
> against size - 1 for end-of-sequence conditions is transparent (e.g.
> below:do: vs. to:do:).
>>> 2. Why no arithmetic precedence in binary messages?
>>> Again, it seems more intuitive to include arithmetic precedence as
>>> common knowledge.
>> I agree with this. OTOH Slate's syntax is derived from Smalltalk,
>> did not have arithmetic precedence.
> This is a user interface issue and belongs in a real user interface
> (whether you interpret that as graphical syntax or custom Slate
> grammars for the sole purpose of making everyone comfy, and I am not
> opposed to either, if done right). Smalltalk-80's binary operator
> syntax is designed for simplicity and message-sending orientation, so
> context-sensitive precedence obscures this basic way you're supposed
> to look at things. Also, precedence decisions for anything but "common
> knowledge operators" are anything but obvious - maybe if Perl 6's new
> parsing structure for precedence is actually useful and not awful as I
> suspect, we'll allow it in a user interface.
Brian T. Rice
LOGOS Research and Development
More information about the Slate