Re: Apocalypse 12

Would there have been less confusion if the snippet had something like use Grammar::DefinedOps Ť// //=ť; at the top?

I strongly doubt that. It might be better if you just put a couple of lines of comments at the start, but that doesn't help you if you are on line 100, and the top has scrolled of the screen. It doesn't make programming any easier.

The Lisp world copes reasonably well with macros.

And so does C. Just look at the multitude of people who understand the sources of perl.

Abigail

Comment on Re: Apocalypse 12 Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Apocalypse 12 by TimToady (Parson) on Apr 20, 2004 at 19:40 UTC
If the only tool you have is a macro, everything starts to look like a macro argument.	[reply]
Re^4: Apocalypse 12 by adrianh (Chancellor) on Apr 20, 2004 at 20:56 UTC
I strongly doubt that. It might be better if you just put a couple of lines of comments at the start, but that doesn't help you if you are on line 100, and the top has scrolled of the screen. It doesn't make programming any easier. How is this different from introducing `refaddr` to a module with `use Scalar::Util qw(refaddr)`? If people can understand that new subroutines can come from modules why should they have problems understanding that new syntax can come from modules? Lispers and Pop-11 coders don't appear to have any problems doing this. And so does C Comparing C and Lisp macros is hardly comparing like-with-like is it? :-) Just look at the multitude of people who understand the sources of perl. Perhaps if the Perl 5 lexer/parser/code-planter was designed in a different way more people would be able to understand it? Maybe if it was more modular and more exposed to the end user people would be able to tweak the bits they were interested in tweaking without having to understand all of the source?	[reply] [d/l] [select]