Brackets () arounds functions
BlitzMax Forums/BlitzMax Programming/Brackets () arounds functions
| ||
| Would like to request that brackets are required around all function calls rather than just ones that are returning values. Always thought this functionality was a pain when using VB6 and going to .Net confirms to me that bracketing everything is so much easier and cleaner. |
| ||
| Why? It is sometimes a pain to have to put brackets around everything when you just want to print some things when debugging. I like how it is now, where it is optional. |
| ||
| If you like it, then use brackets (parentheses, actually). If you don't, don't. Simple and everyone's happy. :) Russell |
| ||
| I would like if strict mode forced brackets. |
| ||
| Hmm.. How about two forms of strict mode (for those who want the normal requirements of Strict, but don't mind the bracket\no bracket requirement? StrictBracket or Strict - <options> Russell |
| ||
| I'm with Russell -- if you want to put brackets around everything there's nothing to stop you. Jonathan's suggestion might be good -- more punishment for people who choose Strict mode. (Standing up for lazy programmers since 1996!) |
| ||
| NO!! bracketing everything is so much easier and cleaner. Huh? ...Graphics(640,480)
Text("Hello World",10,10)
Flip()
WaitKey()
End()This still looks clean to me ... Graphics 640,480 Text "Hello World",10,10 Flip WaitKey End Commands = no brackets functions = brackets PureBasic brackets commands and functions and it's one of my pet hates. |
| ||
| But thats the reason behind the bracket idea. There is no such thing as a command, they are all functions. Splitting function calling into 2 different "classes" just confuses things. Personally I find it easier to program in a language where syntax is consistant. There would be one big advantage with forcing brackets, there would never be any mixup with variables that share the same name as a function. |
| ||
| I'm with Russel. I don't think it should be forced outright, but having an option to force it would be good for those who want it. I wouldn't use it though 'cause I'm a lazy programmer. |
| ||
| I'm sure Mark could put in a 'VeryVeryStrict' directive for those who want to waste time reading a long list of error reports because they forgot to put () around one command. One nice thing about Blitz(Max) is its easy/relaxed approach to coding. Lets keep it that way. |
| ||
| there is a difference between functions and commands ( or known as methods as well ): functions change and have a return value methods change but don't return anything there would be a third type of functionality: query return but don't change anything everything without a return has no real need for () as the () is to encapsulate input if you want to use the output straight as new "object" with .blabla |
| ||
| There is no such thing as a command, they are all functions. No. Actually most are statements. A function takes it's word from the wonderful world of mathematics, such as for instance: y = f(x) = x^2*sin(x).As can be clearly said for something to be a function it must have two properties. It must take an input value (x in this case) and have an output value (f(x) or y in this case). Thus it is possible to find one corresponding output value for any given input. Any command that does not have these two properties is a statement or procedure (statement if it has neither input or output, procedure if it has either input or output). methods change but don't return anything That's not a very accurate definition.Traditionally the () is there to distinguish between methods and fields, as many languages (traditionally C++, but also newer languages) allow you to have a "xposition" field and an "xposition" method. Now since the C++ compiler, for some reason must be a single pass compiler, it needs to know which member you are trying to access, the field or the method. Thus() the() need() to() postfix() absolutely() everything(). |
   |