3 ms·

You've lost sight of jacquesm's premise, which is when 1) the intention is not accurately reflected by the indentation, and 2) does not break the syntax of the

by pohl 17y ago

You've lost sight of jacquesm's premise, which is when 1) the intention is not accurately reflected by the indentation, and 2) does not break the syntax of the language. You asked what benefit might come from the redundancy of a curly brace, and this was a scenario in response.

nailer 17y ago
When the intention is not reflected by the indentation, you need to fix that, in every programming language. Python also has the handy benefit of telling you this immediately. jacquesm's statement about the visible difference is obviously false. However I don't think it's doing anyone any good to keep contributing on this topic. All I was doing was making a suggestion to improve something. The troll who posted 'no' with no arguments has a bunch of supporters, I'm being moderated down to nothing. You're not responding to my points, and you seem to think I'm not listening to you, though I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I give up, this isn't worth it.
- pohl 17y ago
  I'm only guessing, but the downmods may actually be because of disingenuous rhetoric. Example: "you need to fix that, in every programming language." This problem only exists if indentation is significant in the language as a way of demarcating blocks. This is exactly the reason for the suggested syntactic redundancy. A reasonable person can accept the tradeoff, but it's not reasonable to insist that the tradeoff isn't there at all. Edit: the proposed scenario is readable code. It is, in fact, disingenuous to ignore that. It isn't candid to claim apathy, either.
  - nailer 17y ago
    Needing to have readable code is a problem is every language. If you find that disingenuous, fine, I don't care anymore. Edit: you consider badly indented code readable? You must be great fun to work with. :^)
    - pohl 17y ago
      In my defense, Python would agree with me that it is readable: it would happily execute the line in the wrong block scope because of a single, invisible character was present or missing. I bet you meant "semantically correct" instead. Yes, every program's semantics need to be correct in order for the program to be correct. That's a tautology, and it's a deflection from the subject of the tradeoff analysis that you requested upthread. You're probably a bundle of joy to work with, too. :^)
      - nailer 17y ago
        No, I mean readable. For example: if (a > b) { a = a + 5 b = b / 2 } ...is not considered readable brace-requiring language because it's appearance doesn't reflect what's executed. Ie: * Python and similar languages would execute the code consistently with how it looks. This is good. * A brace-requiring language would execute the code in a way that is not consistent with how it looks. This is not good. Scroll up: I didn't request any analysis, I made a suggestion. Someone posted a blank 'no', and I asked them for a more civil explanation of their views.
        pohl 17y ago
        ...and I asked them for [an] explanation of their views Yeah, that's the request I was referring to. Python and similar languages would execute the code consistently with how it looks. This is good. It's good and bad. You win something, you give up something. This is the nature of a tradeoff. It's not like Python lives in an alternate universe where tradeoffs don't exist. But I'm beginning to think its advocates live in one where tradeoffs are invisible in broad daylight.
        nailer 17y ago
        'Yeah, that's the request I was referring to.' Having an opinion thrust at you does not equate to soliciting said opinion. It's your responsibility to clearly state the benefits of what you're advocating. You don't seem to be able to do that.

by pohl 17y ago

nailer 17y ago

When the intention is not reflected by the indentation, you need to fix that, in every programming language. Python also has the handy benefit of telling you this immediately. jacquesm's statement about the visible difference is obviously false. However I don't think it's doing anyone any good to keep contributing on this topic. All I was doing was making a suggestion to improve something. The troll who posted 'no' with no arguments has a bunch of supporters, I'm being moderated down to nothing. You're not responding to my points, and you seem to think I'm not listening to you, though I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I give up, this isn't worth it.

pohl 17y ago
I'm only guessing, but the downmods may actually be because of disingenuous rhetoric. Example: "you need to fix that, in every programming language." This problem only exists if indentation is significant in the language as a way of demarcating blocks. This is exactly the reason for the suggested syntactic redundancy. A reasonable person can accept the tradeoff, but it's not reasonable to insist that the tradeoff isn't there at all. Edit: the proposed scenario is readable code. It is, in fact, disingenuous to ignore that. It isn't candid to claim apathy, either.
- nailer 17y ago
  Needing to have readable code is a problem is every language. If you find that disingenuous, fine, I don't care anymore. Edit: you consider badly indented code readable? You must be great fun to work with. :^)
  - pohl 17y ago
    In my defense, Python would agree with me that it is readable: it would happily execute the line in the wrong block scope because of a single, invisible character was present or missing. I bet you meant "semantically correct" instead. Yes, every program's semantics need to be correct in order for the program to be correct. That's a tautology, and it's a deflection from the subject of the tradeoff analysis that you requested upthread. You're probably a bundle of joy to work with, too. :^)
    - nailer 17y ago
      No, I mean readable. For example: if (a > b) { a = a + 5 b = b / 2 } ...is not considered readable brace-requiring language because it's appearance doesn't reflect what's executed. Ie: * Python and similar languages would execute the code consistently with how it looks. This is good. * A brace-requiring language would execute the code in a way that is not consistent with how it looks. This is not good. Scroll up: I didn't request any analysis, I made a suggestion. Someone posted a blank 'no', and I asked them for a more civil explanation of their views.
      - pohl 17y ago
        ...and I asked them for [an] explanation of their views Yeah, that's the request I was referring to. Python and similar languages would execute the code consistently with how it looks. This is good. It's good and bad. You win something, you give up something. This is the nature of a tradeoff. It's not like Python lives in an alternate universe where tradeoffs don't exist. But I'm beginning to think its advocates live in one where tradeoffs are invisible in broad daylight.
        nailer 17y ago
        'Yeah, that's the request I was referring to.' Having an opinion thrust at you does not equate to soliciting said opinion. It's your responsibility to clearly state the benefits of what you're advocating. You don't seem to be able to do that.