On 05/20/2013 10:12 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
Really? Isn't the number of programs breaking roughly equal to 2, perhaps less?
Interesting, how did you get that number?
I was making a joke using "unreasonable precision", but I would like to actually see more than that (meaning: I don't think there is) in the standard library. There just isn't much, if at all, of a programmatic reason to use such a construct. It's 1) more typing, 2) a highly improbably sequence that accidently worked by the programmer, 3) it doesn't really satisfy any conceptual separation that I can envision (putting two string literals on the same line? what possible purpose?)
And this is the point -- it's more likely a programmer error. Really, I have a hard time believing that the number of programs that would break being larger than a handful. And to fix it is a no-brainer.
On the same line is probably rare, I agree. On different lines it is very common. Much more common than the number of errors generated by the forgotten comma. -- ~Ethan~