[eiffel-nice-library] Re: Vote on changing infix "+" to infix "&" in STRING
- Hope it's legal to comment on a vote that's already underway. It strikes
me that the original premise for the change is flawed. The post stated
that the symbol & is:
already used in typography to associate two sentences, like in
"David & Goliath"
I would disagree. The symbol is not generally used to associate two
sentences. It is used as a single-character abbreviation for the word
"and" which is as much a part of the single sentence in which it appears
as any other word. (Or in programming terms, it's used as a component of
Furthermore, although it's not always possible, it's a good idea if code
can be verbalised in a way that's understandable, so that it's possible
to converse about it when away from a computer. (People may not feel
this is a priority but it's certainly convenient in education for
dealing with "questions on the corridor".) When people see the symbol &,
they read it as "and" (I've only ever heard "ampersand" in the context
of typography or graphic design). So for a string expression like:
"Competitors " & last & " and " & second_last & " have been eliminated"
I see "and and and" in the middle which I find a bit irksome. You could
argue that + " plus " + could also arise but I think that would be
extremely rare in comparison, as "plus" is rarely used in it's
spelled-out version. Basically, as the word "and" is undoubtedly one of
the most frequently-used words in a string, I think the new operator
would make concatenated strings confusing to read (especially aloud).
Just an initial thought that I'm not particularly convinced of yet (but
better to fire it off now rather than wait till the voting is over). I
also haven't thought about the benefits of being able to put a
previously unused operator in class GENERAL, which wouldn't get
entangled with infix "+" for numerics.
> From: Don Ryan [mailto:don.ryan@...]This is a minor problem IMHO. In everyday language, "and" is used instead of
> Furthermore, although it's not always possible, it's a good
> idea if code
> can be verbalised in a way that's understandable, so that
> it's possible
> to converse about it when away from a computer. (People may not feel
> this is a priority but it's certainly convenient in education for
> dealing with "questions on the corridor".)
"plus" and there's no problem either, isn't it?
This is a private communication, not a statement from my employer.