[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Assignment operators and continuation tokens (was: Re: new octave)
From: |
Bill Denney |
Subject: |
Re: Assignment operators and continuation tokens (was: Re: new octave) |
Date: |
Sat, 4 Mar 2006 12:51:18 -0500 (EST) |
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, John W. Eaton wrote:
On 3-Mar-2006, Miquel Cabanas wrote:
| octave:3> myfilter =
| parse error:
|
| syntax error
|
| >>> myfilter =
| ^
|
| I assume there must be a good reason to keep this exception.
I'm not sure that there is a good reason. Should we consider making
it possible? What about other binary operators? Note that it won't
be possible to write
some_variable
= some_other_expression + another_expression + and_another;
without a continuation, because "some_variable" is a valid expression
by itself.
To me, the automatic continuation within a closure (I think I'm using the
word correctly-- I mean within (), [], {}, etc.) makes sense and is
readable, but outside of these, it doesn't make sense to me and decreases
code readability.
Bill
--
Warning label at MIT's Junior Lab:
"WARNING: Do not look into laser with remaining eye"
-- /usr/bin/fortune
-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.
Octave's home on the web: http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects: http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information: http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
- new octave, hugo1981 (sent by Nabble.com), 2006/03/03