Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!not-for-mail From: Peter von der Ahe Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the Mjoelner implementation? Date: 15 Feb 1998 23:41:11 +0100 Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University Lines: 42 Sender: pahe@ufleku.daimi.aau.dk Message-ID: References: <6c1hga$39h@nx2.HRZ.Uni-Dortmund.DE> <6c293c$980@nx2.HRZ.Uni-Dortmund.DE> <6c7mga$l2k@nx2.HRZ.Uni-Dortmund.DE> NNTP-Posting-Host: ufleku.daimi.aau.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Attribution: Ahe X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 Xref: news.daimi.aau.dk comp.lang.beta:11403 >>>>> "MN" == Mark Nowiasz writes: MN> Peter von der Ahe wrote: >> L: >> (# >> var: @integer >> do >> var + 1 -> var; >> (if var <> 2 then restart L if) >> #) >> Its easy to see that it is difficult if not impossible to determine if >> the programmer want "var" initialized on each iteration or not (he >> probably doesn't in this case). MN> Arg! This piece of code is really ugly and a good example of bad MN> programming style [...] If it is ugly and bad programming style or not is a matter of personal taste, perhaps I would prefer that my loop variable is a part of my loop, exactly like the "repeat" construct in beta. The point however was that it can be non-trivial for the compiler to decide if the programmer wants an inserted item or not - you said it was trivial, and it should be left to the compiler to decide. I say that you can't let the compiler decide. MN> BTW, if in the Mjolner system a -> b -> c is a synonym for a -> MN> &b ->c, does the example above work correctly? No, it loops forever. /Peter -- o============o Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE) to this address Legal Notice is indication of your consent to pay me $120/hour for 1 hour o============o minimum for professional proofreading & technical assessment. Peter von der Ahé · pahe@daimi.aau.dk ·