Olin Lathrop wrote:

>>> I think part of the point is that certain features, like the string
>>> handling Sergio described, require a lot less special syntax when
>>> built in than they would require special functions if "built in"
>>> that way.
>> 
>> Can you make up an example here? I think it's the other way round:
>> if it's built into the language, there tends to be a special syntax,
>> whereas if it's part of a standard library, it tends to use the
>> standard syntax that's already there.
> 
> I did provide some examples that you snipped.  Using, for example,
> the "+" operator for string concatenation is no additional syntax at
> all.  It can also handle various cases of strings of different types
> (ASCII, unicode, whatever) or whether they are characters or strings
> if the language makes such a distinction.  Unless you allow for
> function overloading, you'd have a large mess of function names for
> all the possible combinations.  Even without overloading you probably
> have a few for different special cases for efficiency. 
> 
> Using the operator in this example, it is easier for the compiler to
> "see" what is going on and deal with the combinations of string types
> and special cases itself.  You could in theory define a generalized
> string concatenation function that the compiler understands as a
> special case, but that's really the same thing with a different
> syntax, more work for the compiler writer, and less readable code.
> 
> I'd rather write
> 
>   strb <-- stra + stru + " more stuff"
> 
> than
> 
>   strb <-- StringConcatenate(stra, stru, " more stuff");
> 
> and I think Sergio is saying that from a compiler writer's point of
> view he'd prefer the first also.

So do I, but I fail to understand why this requires that the string
handling is built into the compiler.

Your preferred syntax looks (in principle) quite similar to the C++
std::string syntax, where normal string handling is implemented in a
standard library.

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist