Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:51:49 +0000
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 9:43 AM Breno Guimarães via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Oh, I was thinking in the other direction. I thought it was beautiful to not have a new keyword and clearly state "i have this lockable which is really a binary_semaphore, but has these extra methods" and I think it's unambiguous syntax (so would be more easily accepted)
>
> But yes, it's way too soon to talk about syntax.
I can find beauty in that which is succinct, although when we're
engineering and banging out bytes and bits, I think we sometimes need
to forego beauty for "Will I know what this is doing 7 weeks from now
when I glance back at it?". The beauty can be in the functionality,
and the simplicity of coding it provides. After it's accepted into the
Standard I can see about writing a poem to balance things out.
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Oh, I was thinking in the other direction. I thought it was beautiful to not have a new keyword and clearly state "i have this lockable which is really a binary_semaphore, but has these extra methods" and I think it's unambiguous syntax (so would be more easily accepted)
>
> But yes, it's way too soon to talk about syntax.
I can find beauty in that which is succinct, although when we're
engineering and banging out bytes and bits, I think we sometimes need
to forego beauty for "Will I know what this is doing 7 weeks from now
when I glance back at it?". The beauty can be in the functionality,
and the simplicity of coding it provides. After it's accepted into the
Standard I can see about writing a poem to balance things out.
Received on 2023-02-24 09:52:02