| |||||||||||||
Syntax flubsSyntax flubsPosted Jan 29, 2010 9:07 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227)In reply to: Syntax flubs by alextingle Parent article: GCC to merge Go support
>Because things like this make your head hurt...
>*a.b->c.d->e *= *p->q.r * *x[2];
Maybe the case for prefix operators is much more simple:
*a=b; /* ok */
(Log in to post comments)
Syntax flubs Posted Jan 29, 2010 18:25 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Yeah, that's a problem.The issue isn't that postfix indirection is better than prefix; the real issue is that postfix declaration is better than prefix because then the pointer declarator is on the same precedence level as () and [], and complex declaration are less... complex. This is problematic in a language like C where declaration mimics use, since the best syntax for declaration is not the same as the best syntax for use.
Syntax flubs Posted Jan 30, 2010 10:52 UTC (Sat) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
No, it is no problem. Of course Go is not bound to match C's operators in any
case, but if they chose to be so bound, they could use "@" for the purpose. As could, indeed, C or C++. I.e., those languages could also fix the problem, even at this late date. They can be excused for not doing so, but Go cannot.
Syntax flubs Posted Feb 4, 2010 18:25 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] I agree, using '@' as an indirection operator would work. But it looks funny, especially as a postfix operator. I would probably get used to it.I better like the idea of separating declaration syntax from expression syntax and using '*' as a postfix pointer declarator and '[]' as an infix[1] indirection operator, like this: var p *[10]int; var a [10]*int; [p][0] = 1; [a[0]] = 1; I guess I could call this "square lisp" syntax. :) [1] This really isn't infix, since the operand is infix, not the operator, but I don't know the correct term for this form.
Syntax flubs Posted Feb 4, 2010 22:51 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] [1] This really isn't infix, since the operand is infix, not the operator, but I don't know the correct term for this form. Outfix?
Syntax flubs Posted Feb 7, 2010 1:44 UTC (Sun) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Outfix?You are indeed correct! http://www.abstractmath.org/MM/MMFunctionValue.htm#_Toc223234910 It seems obvious in retrospect. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||