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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #28361

Re: verifying precedence

Show all headers | View raw

"Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> writes:

> 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 

For anyone wanting any maintainability then bracket it. It takes the
guessing out. I wouldn't dumb down the language use in terms of generics
etc but bracketing is a simple thing to so that removes any doubt.

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 Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-05-01 18:51 -0400
          Re: verifying precedence Arne Vajhøj <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 Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-05-01 18:50 -0400
        Re: verifying precedence Arne Vajhøj <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 Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-05-01 21:27 -0400

csiph-web