M
marian.edu
Guest
[quote user="gus"] the problem here is a general langauage syntax one - you want to name a vairable somethignthat looks like a functioncall. [/quote] I have no desire to do such a thing, do understand the challenges of language parsing and won't advocate for having variable names that looks like function calls especially in an already ambiguous syntax as our good old 4gl 
[quote user="gus"] Granted, the dynamic names do not follow the same rules and that is wrong. Like it or not, you have to follow the naming rules. and those should be the same for static and dynamic names. [/quote] I still don't see why this is so wrong, there is no technical reason to impose same restrictions as for static syntax (the prove is this just works)... it's not like a armed gun or anything that you can hurt others with, it's just a special one that one can use to shoot himself in the foot - hope those will be launched soon on idiegogo so we can way for Darwin to make the selection It's true I can't do mytt::count(*) as that will also confuse the compiler but mytt:default-buffer-handle:buffer-field('count(*)') works just fine... you haven't heard me complaining for not being able to use the shortcut version did you? Point is, this simply works as-is and for me adding restrictions just to make the dynamic handling 'consistent' with the static one is like forbidding birds to fly because mammals can't... oh wait, let me try a language I'm not very familiar with, from the business perspective what will be the justification to cover the development cost for 'fixing' that huge bug walking around free?
Continue reading...
[quote user="gus"] Granted, the dynamic names do not follow the same rules and that is wrong. Like it or not, you have to follow the naming rules. and those should be the same for static and dynamic names. [/quote] I still don't see why this is so wrong, there is no technical reason to impose same restrictions as for static syntax (the prove is this just works)... it's not like a armed gun or anything that you can hurt others with, it's just a special one that one can use to shoot himself in the foot - hope those will be launched soon on idiegogo so we can way for Darwin to make the selection It's true I can't do mytt::count(*) as that will also confuse the compiler but mytt:default-buffer-handle:buffer-field('count(*)') works just fine... you haven't heard me complaining for not being able to use the shortcut version did you? Point is, this simply works as-is and for me adding restrictions just to make the dynamic handling 'consistent' with the static one is like forbidding birds to fly because mammals can't... oh wait, let me try a language I'm not very familiar with, from the business perspective what will be the justification to cover the development cost for 'fixing' that huge bug walking around free?Continue reading...