Re: choice of character for relational division

On Apr 1, 7:53 pm, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > ...
> > There is a danger, though, at least in an industrial setting. If some
> > guy is working alone, there's no reason for him not to tweak
> > everything just the way he likes it. But if it's a team of 100,
> > then probably it *should* be cast in stone or we'll get the
> > Tower of Babel.
> > ...
>
> I got used to a system that did not save source code as written. Only
> "object" was saved. If you wanted to see source, the object was
> de-compiled. Such a system allows the user to view the code anyway they
> want, even to the extent of making expressions left or right
> associative, as the user sees fit. Same goes for opcode symbols or
> mnemonics.

So ... what kind of code was this? If it was assembly, I could see that working, because the format is so regular. If it's anything in the algol family, I don't see how it could work. There is formatting in the comments. There is formatting in where the line breaks happen in long source lines. None of this info is preserved in object form. And if it was, how would editing be enabled such that everyone could edit this information according to their own style, and yet others could see it in *their* style? I don't see any way to make that work without discarding some set of things programmers are used to having.

Marshall Received on Mon Apr 02 2007 - 05:11:41 CEST