Warp wrote:
>   However, it doesn't matter! As long as F behaves like a function, that's
> just fine. This is used quite a lot in template coding, eg. with functors
> and comparators. This gives flexibility and versatility.

Hmm. I never thought of it that way. OK.

>   It's not like C++ was the only language which behaves like this.

Well.... I think it's one of the few languages where you can't tell whether 
something's invoking a function or adding a name to the namespace at compile 
time.  It would seem to make writing parsers and such harder than it needs 
to be.

I'll grant that there are a number of languages where (say) writing "F(5)" 
doesn't tell you whether F is a function, a pointer to a function, or a 
function that returns another function, say.

>   Most languages have special keywords to denote what you want to do.
> For example, some languages might have a keyword like "function" to denote
> that you are starting a function definition, as opposed to starting a
> function call. I don't really see the big difference.

It makes the grammar easier to automate.

>> You can't tell me a language with undecidable syntax isn't at least a little 
>> sucky, yes?
> 
>   When that syntax brings flexibility, I don't consider is such a huge
> problem.

Other languages seem to manage being as flexible without having such complex 
grammars. I'll grant that they trade off runtime efficiency to achieve that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message