Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #28360

Re: verifying precedence

From "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org>
Newsgroups comp.lang.java.programmer
References (2 earlier) <ljtpkp$isn$1@dont-email.me> <1qwlhphwzsn5o.19fl7m2msrabe.dlg@40tude.net> <ljtqdt$oas$1@dont-email.me> <operators-20140501215811@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <ljugfi$32r$1@dont-email.me>
Subject Re: verifying precedence
Date 2014-05-04 10:53 +0100
Message-ID <0IOdnRusKIWSkvvOnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@bt.com> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

Joshua Cranmer ?? wrote:

> It's like that with operator precedence: sure, there may not be all that
> much to learn/memorize, but if you never use it, it's going to leave
> your head as quickly as it came in.

One difference here is that, in a natural language, unused forms die out or 
acquire new meanings.  In a programming language (with current tech, anyway ;-) 
that doesn't happen.

So someone using an obscure form doesn't get a "huh?" from the compiler as 
would happen with real speech.  The compiler is quite happy -- /it/ is an 
expert in the language -- but the code may still not be fit for purpose.

Hence the /recommendation/ to use brackets.  It could be seen as dumbing down, 
it could be seen as "common sense".  Another way of seeing it is as 
retroactively "fixing" a discovered flaw in the design of the language -- that 
it has too many precedence levels (even if they aren't scambled).

    -- chris

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

verifying precedence Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-05-01 04:50 -0700
  Re: verifying precedence leif.roar@invalid.com (Leif Roar Moldskred) - 2014-05-01 07:04 -0500
    Re: verifying precedence Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2014-05-01 10:35 -0500
      Re: verifying precedence Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2014-05-01 17:40 +0200
        Re: verifying precedence Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2014-05-01 10:49 -0500
          Re: verifying precedence Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2014-05-01 17:05 -0500
            Re: verifying precedence Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-05-02 10:22 -0700
            Re: verifying precedence "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2014-05-04 10:53 +0100
              Re: verifying precedence Simon Lewis <simonlewis2001@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 13:23 +0200
          Re: verifying precedence Arne VajhĂžj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-05-01 18:51 -0400
          Re: verifying precedence Arne VajhĂžj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-05-01 19:00 -0400
          Re: verifying precedence Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-05-01 17:48 -0700
          Re: verifying precedence Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-05-02 13:29 -0400
      Re: verifying precedence Arne VajhĂžj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-05-01 18:50 -0400
        Re: verifying precedence Arne VajhĂžj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-05-01 19:18 -0400
    Re: verifying precedence Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-05-01 17:46 -0700
      Re: verifying precedence Arne VajhĂžj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-05-01 21:27 -0400

csiph-web