allow line break at operators

[Seebs]

On 2011-08-12, rantingrick <rantingrick at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 11:33?am, Seebs <usenet-nos... at seebs.net> wrote:
>> My brain has quirks. ?Some people call them defects, some don't, but it
>> really doesn't matter; there are things about which my brain is just plain
>> unreliable and I rely moderately heavily on extra visual cues to reduce
>> the frequency with which I get things wrong when skimming.

> I think that really boils down to you refusing to open your eyes up to
> new ways of doing things.

You think that, then?  Okay.

> You are clutching the past and it is taking
> you down with it.

I see.  This is a brilliant new theory.  I will further explore the notion
that actually my brain is 100% normal with no limitations except that I have
used languages with braces.  Doubtless this will prove illuminating.

>> No, because the *LANE BOUNDARIES* would move.

> The "lane boundaries" will also move whilst reading code that uses the
> indent/dedent paradigm. Are you honestly telling me that you will skip
> over a four spaced dedent without seeing it however you can easily
> spot a single closing brace and instantly "know" which corresponding
> opener brace to which it referrers without looking, and counting, and
> wasting time? Sorry, i just don't believe you.

Nope, not telling you that.  Here's my example:

    if foo:
        blah
        blah
        blah
        if bar:
            moreblah
            moreblah
	    if quux:
		typingisboring
		typingisboring
		typingisboring
            moreblah
            moreblah
            if baz:
                somuchblah
                somuchblah
                somuchblah
                somuchblah
                somuchblah
                somuchblah
                somuchblah
                somuchblah
	abitmoreblah

It's not easy for me to be sure, looking at something roughly like that,
what's being closed and what isn't.  If I have braces, I can tell how many
things are being closed.  I like that.  It makes me happy.

>> I propose we extend it to expression processing in general. ?Instead
>> of writing
>> ? ? ? ? a = (x + y) * z
>> let's just write
>> ? ? ? ? a = (x + y * z

> I'm glad you brought this up! How about this instead:

>     a = x + y * z

> ...where the calculation is NOT subject to operator precedence? I
> always hated using parenthesis in mathematical calculations. All math
> should resolve in a linear fashion. 3+3*2 should always be 12 and NOT
> 9!

Doesn't matter.  At some point, somewhere, it would become desireable
to introduce precedence with (), at which point, it is quite possible
that the trailing ) would be redundant, so why not omit it?

> I am not trying to discredit you simply by disagreeing with you.

No, but you're certainly being insulting.

> I have offered facts as to why significant indention is far superior to
> braces and yet you continue to use the same emotionally charged babble
> in your defense.

Facts:
	Pry your lips from Ritchie's left teet and stop slurping
	that "brace" milk; because it is polluting your mind!

Emotionally charged babble:
	My brain has quirks. Some people call them defects, some don't,
	but it really doesn't matter; there are things about which
	my brain is just plain unreliable and I rely moderately
	heavily on extra visual cues to reduce the frequency with
	which I get things wrong when skimming.

> When you offer some real facts then i will give then
> just consideration, until then i will "try" to enlighten you of the
> merits of significant indentation.

Well played!

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam at seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.