[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "static" declaration

Michael Vanier <mvanier@cs.caltech.edu> writes:

> > I would like to point out that the difference between languages in
> > their dependence for sanity on sane convention is largely in how
> > widely the conventions are followed; for example, most C++, Smalltalk,
> > and Lisp dialects, Python, and to some extent, even Eiffel, allow
> > programmers to willfully violate module boundaries and "peek behind
> > the curtain" of any abstraction; it's just a matter of how easy it is
> > and how commonly it is practiced.
> > 
> What I think would be really cool is if languages gave programmers the
> power to define their own conventions that could then be enforced by the
> compiler.  Sort of like a user-programmable "use strict" pragma where the
> definition of "strict" could be up to the programmer (or, more
> realistically, the programming team).  This would cause this particular
> debate to evaporate.

are you really sure?

- how many programmers are skillful enough to choose a good definition
of "strict"

- standardisation pb: if "strict" changes the semantic (the way it
does in perl), you allow people to define their "own perl". The result
is that you have to know the "strict"ness to understand & modify a
program. This is already somewhat the case in perl, but since there's
only one "strict", one learns&knows it.