On 05 November 2003 18:39, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003, Ford, Mike [LSS] wrote:
> >
> > I don't think the number of characters is the main issue here --
> > it's about having a *nicer* set of characters. Personally, I'd be
> > still be in favour (although not quite as much) if the proposed
> > syntax were [[[1,2,3]]] -- for me, it's about having a syntax that
> > shouts *ARRAY* rather than whispers it.
>
> And array() steps too softly for you?
In comparison to [], yes. I mean, I've got used to array() and all, and I'd
happily carry on using it if the consensus goes that way, but I'd also
switch all my scripts to [] in a twinkling if it became permitted.
(Hell, let's face it, you can get used to anything if it's the right tool
for the job -- and almost anything's an improvement over spending an
afternoon counting parentheses in a LISP program, curly brackets in a B
program, or the number of implied REFs in an Algol68 type declaration...!)
Cheers!
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ford, Electronic Information Services Adviser,
Learning Support Services, Learning & Information Services,
JG125, James Graham Building, Leeds Metropolitan University,
Beckett Park, LEEDS, LS6 3QS, United Kingdom
Email: m.ford@lmu.ac.uk
Tel: +44 113 283 2600 extn 4730 Fax: +44 113 283 3211
