andrel wrote:
> OK, so there is where we part. I don't want to think about hardware or 
> compiler issues when I am solving a problem. 

Me neither. But someone has to. If you're using a language with reserved 
words, you're going to have to avoid them.

> Just as when I am doing math and I feel that I should need to 
> introduce a new syntax. Standard and new syntax will form my new 
> framework. Whatever someone else at any one time though were his 
> fundamental concepts is immaterial to me.

Yep. Then you should be using FORTH or LISP or Tcl or something like 
that, right? What language *do* you prefer? There aren't very many that 
let you introduce new syntax to the language.

In any case, you're still going to have to explain the new syntax, which 
means you're going to have to use a language comprehensible to your 
listeners. You can't just make up a new language from scratch and expect 
to be able to communicate with someone else, even if that other person's 
brain is flexible enough to learn it if taught it.

> Let me reiterate, I don't even care if Haskell allows it or not. The 
> discussion was if Haskell should visually make the distinction or not. 
> To which my answer is no, because what is and what isn't a reserved word 
> is too arbitrary. i.e. some are legitimate reserved (most of your 
> examples are from that stock), some are reserved but a case could be 
> made to relieve them of that status and some are not reserved, but might 
> be. So fuzziness all over, hence: do not treat them visually different.

OK. I'd say I'd want them treated differently if they actually are 
reserved. I.e., if I have a variable called "case", I'd want to see the 
statement starting
    case case of
to have two different color words, for example.

I take it you don't like syntax coloring in your editor?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message