4 ms·

Yep, it's my opinion, and that's why I put it into the design. Lots of language design comes from opinions. I hope it's borne out. FWIW it's the same approac

by jneen 12y ago

Yep, it's my opinion, and that's why I put it into the design. Lots of language design comes from opinions. I hope it's borne out. FWIW it's the same approach Rust has taken, where macros have to end with a ! to make them visually distinct.

lectrick 12y ago
That might be because Rust might not eat its own dogfood in that department, and build some of its own functionality out of its macro system. But I can see just "knowing" at a glance if it's a macro or not. I think the answer would basically be determined by how much of the language itself uses its own macro system AND what type of macro system it actually is. If it's significant, having special syntax would just look weird.
- kibwen 12y ago
  Rust does eat its own dogfood with regard to macros, and over time has steadily replaced former language-level features like `log` and `panic` with macros. Syntactic distinction is a philosophical choice in service of making costs more explicit (and while it's true that functions can hide behavior, overuse of macros can trigger enormous code bloat, such as the `regex!` macro which compiles your regex into a state machine). (There are also valid technical reasons for requiring syntactic distinction, as the sheer flexibility of Rust's macros in their ability to create new syntax run the risk of making it a nightmare to parse if you remove the unambiguous ability of the compiler to drop into macro-parsing mode. These challenges aren't insurmountable, just very hairy.)
kazinator 12y ago
If you see (foo ...) but don't actually know what foo does, it doesn't matter all that much whether it is a function or an operator. Even if you know it's a function, that just tells you how the arguments are evaluated; but not what happens with those values. Untold effects could hide behind a function call.

4 ms·

Yep, it's my opinion, and that's why I put it into the design. Lots of language design comes from opinions. I hope it's borne out. FWIW it's the same approac

by jneen 12y ago

lectrick 12y ago
That might be because Rust might not eat its own dogfood in that department, and build some of its own functionality out of its macro system. But I can see just "knowing" at a glance if it's a macro or not. I think the answer would basically be determined by how much of the language itself uses its own macro system AND what type of macro system it actually is. If it's significant, having special syntax would just look weird.
- kibwen 12y ago
  Rust does eat its own dogfood with regard to macros, and over time has steadily replaced former language-level features like `log` and `panic` with macros. Syntactic distinction is a philosophical choice in service of making costs more explicit (and while it's true that functions can hide behavior, overuse of macros can trigger enormous code bloat, such as the `regex!` macro which compiles your regex into a state machine). (There are also valid technical reasons for requiring syntactic distinction, as the sheer flexibility of Rust's macros in their ability to create new syntax run the risk of making it a nightmare to parse if you remove the unambiguous ability of the compiler to drop into macro-parsing mode. These challenges aren't insurmountable, just very hairy.)
kazinator 12y ago
If you see (foo ...) but don't actually know what foo does, it doesn't matter all that much whether it is a function or an operator. Even if you know it's a function, that just tells you how the arguments are evaluated; but not what happens with those values. Untold effects could hide behind a function call.