Programming project

[Matthew Tuck]

Tanton Gibbs wrote:

> I think the full closed form is more readable, especially because we
> have to remember that even though the perl forms are more similar to
> English, many of the best programmers do not speak English and are not
> subject to our language quirks.

Well, do these sort of forms exist in other languages?

> Well, with Java, every thing was Object Based and there are no free
> methods, with your shorthand idea, I believe it becomes
> easier...however, I was wondering what the point would be in
> inheriting from a function?  Most of what you inherit are data and
> funcitonality.
> A function has parameters, but if you change the function, why not
> just write a new one?

Well, it allows binding of run-time data without rewriting generic
functions as I've said earlier and shorthands are easy to translate at a
compiler level.

> No, it is a standard library feature, you can say something like
> 
> x = find_if( list, greater_than(7) );
> 
> and x will have the first argument greater than 7 in the list.
> Naturally, the second function is a class or function or function
> pointer and can change.

I'm not sure how this is different to what I'm proposing,
implementation-wise.

-- 
     Matthew Tuck - Software Developer & All-Round Nice Guy
                              ***
       Check out the Ultra programming language project!
              http://www.box.net.au/~matty/ultra/