[M3devel] Shorthand type declarations?

[Jay K]

This is not where Modula-3 falls down due to verbosity.

 

 

Many C and C++ programmers discourage such terseness:

int a, b, c(), d();

typedef int T1, T2;

 

 

preferring:

int a;

int b;

int c();

int d();

typedef int T1;

typedef int T2;

 

 

Where is falls down, perhaps, is not using curly braces.

  (And perhaps for gyrations needed for safety, see my recent NTObjFile.m3 changes.

  Can they be safe and not duplicate code, or only one?)

 

 

My editor is geared toward curly braces and helps using them tremendously.

I can't switch editors. I've tried many times.

 

 

I find the terseness Modula-3 does allow:

PROCEDURE(VAR a, b:INTEGER);

TYPE A = RECORD c, d: INTEGER:= 0; END.

 

 

ambiguous.

 

I don't know if a and b are both VAR.

I don't know if c and d both have the initializer.

I'd prefer to see:

PROCEDURE(VAR a: INTEGER; VAR b:INTEGER);

TYPE A = RECORD c: INTEGER := 0; d: INTEGER:= 0; END.

 

 

(and I'm not sure that is equivalent, but I do know what it means.)

(newlines omited in RECORD just for *email brevity*: RECORD should have a newline per field!)

 

I would be in favor of removing all these shorthands from the cm3 tree,

and maybe even warning about them. But they surely are all well defined

if you know the language well. It is meant to be a small language,

but goes a bit too far here I think.

 

 

 - Jay

 
> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:37:33 -0600
> From: rodney_bates at lcwb.coop
> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] Shorthand type declarations?
> 
> 
> 
> Chris wrote:
> > Alright, I'm finally getting the hang of things.
> > 
> > One quick question..
> > 
> > Is there a shorthand for declaring a whole bunch of types as one type? i.e....
> > 
> > TYPE 
> > Window, Pixmap, Cursor = unsigned_int;
> > 
> > Or something similiar?
> > 
> > Doing this
> > TYPE
> > Window = unsigned_int;
> > Pixmap = unsigned_int;
> > Cursor = unsigned_int;
> > etc...
> > Adds up to whole lot of typing.(No pun intended)
> 
> Unfortunately, this is the shortest you can get. I suppose the language designers
> thought that, while a whole lot of variables with the same type were a likely
> case:
> 
> VAR x, y, z, u, v, w, h, i, j, h, ... : INTEGER; ,
> 
> that more than just a few type names that are synonyms for the same type would not be common.
> 
> You may think me certifiably masochist, but I go the more longhanded way and write:
> 
> TYPE Window = unsigned_int;
> TYPE Pixmap = unsigned_int;
> TYPE Cursor = unsigned_int; ,
> 
> sacrificing writeability in favor of readability. (Yes, I repeat VAR and CONST too,
> almost every time.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Any tips would be most welcome.
> > 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20100203/07355c68/attachment-0002.html>