Path: news.cs.au.dk!news.net.uni-c.dk!logbridge.uoregon.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!195.238.2.15!skynet.be!poster!not-for-mail From: Atle Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta Subject: Tha Master of Stupid Questions is back =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C6=C6=C6=C6H=21?= Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:49:15 -0100 Organization: Belgacom Skynet SA/NV Lines: 19 Message-ID: <393FA45B.FD97119D@skynet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup261.charleroi.skynet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news0.skynet.be 960461194 2929 194.78.236.133 (8 Jun 2000 10:46:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@skynet.be NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Jun 2000 10:46:34 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: news.cs.au.dk comp.lang.beta:12398 This time, it is about language syntax. I hope i don't tough on sensitive issues with my questions, but here it is: About the operators @,^, []. Why are there two operators basically denoting the same thing (reference)? When declaring a reference, ^ is used, and when accessing it, [] is used - why? What would be the consequence of using ^ in accesses, or [] in declarations? I am only 1/3 way through the BetaBook, but I don't see any easy explanation for this? Of course, the same applies in a different way to @ and (eh, well, what?) If ^ must be used to denote reference, and @ is used to denote value, when declaring object, why isn't the same sort of rules applied to access? To me, Beta seems to be about consistency and minimalism, why this extra grammar? Is there some history here? Thanks, Atle