A new, better syntax...

Came up with this great idea while I was reading SICP today, what does /prog/ thinK?


As I was calling the method .subString I was thinking to myself how nice it would be if function parameters could have their own scope.

So instead of calling.

c.substring(1, c.length()-1)

You could call

c.substring(1, length-1)

And for the length variable in the string class you would do something like.

FunctionScope int length;

Though a similar syntax you could get rid of the common static identifier in dot net.

For example maybe for functions where an enumerator is wanted.
add(String a, Type.visibletrue)

could be

add(String a, visibletrue)

The latter syntax probably should need nothing but that, because if you are passing an enumerator and the only two valid values are static variables then it should be able to correctly determine the type without the Type. in front.

Obviously this could probably be done in a more correct or better fashion, but I think it is an idea that has some merit to it.
Terra

It's less clear to the reader

I don't like the concept of implicitly changing namespaces like that.

Or you could call c.substring(1, -1) like Perl.

D has a syntax to use "length" in an array.


// possibly not valid, but you'll get the point
int[] a = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10};
int[] b = a[2 .. length - 3];

>>1
i ___fukken___ """rage'd"""

One word.  The forced indentation of code.  Thread over.

function parameters could have their own scope.
You have the wording wrong, this implies that variables created within the caller's ( ) have a different scope. I think what you meant is method parameters have the first scope as the scope of their class.

Not needed in Haskell, anyway.
We use short variable names in such situations,
also we have sane function/operator precedence.

>>1
Troll.

This is a stupid idea. You're stupid.

back to /b/, please

>>9
and we have been trolled constantly.

Go pitch this idea to Perl developers, they'll love it.

>>12
By developers you mean, like, toy language users.

>>13
That is the definition of developers.

Sepples already does something like that, only in reverse (ADL).

>>14
Sans, like, the poor articulation, man.

While explaining the system Southwest warned The?

reader new InputStreamReader System in String s.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy