[Gambas-user] Suggestions 4 new keywords

[Benoît Minisini]

> 2010/9/16 Benoît Minisini <gambas at ...1...>:
> > (1) First, you must realize that the syntax is not the implementation. In
> > a more general way, the word is not the thing. We are confused by that
> > all the life. :-)
> 
> What are you talking about?

That, for me, the implementation, i.e. the internals of the interpreter, is 
the most important. The syntax is less important.

> 
> > So, replacing one word (for example PUBLIC) by another (ATTRIBUTE),
> > whereas the implementation is the same behind is not a good idea,
> > because then this is not BASIC anymore.
> 
> I'm never said that PUBLIC would be replaced by ATTRIBUTE. That have no
> sense.

I mean that declaring a public variable with PUBLIC or with ATTRIBUTE is 
always declaring a public variable, with another keyword.

> 
> Neither, I never said that my proposed syntax should be replace the
> current.
> 
> > I don't mean that the current syntax better,
> 
> The current syntax is fine, but an alternative syntax could be better
> for some programmers
> 
> > but that as I chose to implement
> > a BASIC, I have to follow something that looks like the common usages in
> > other languages..
> 
> That is not an impediment to an alternative syntax. In fact, Gambas
> have alternative syntax for many things:
> 
> - Loops
> - String functions (VB component)
> 

The two cases are just exceptions: the first one, because of the common syntax 
of BASIC languages, and the second because of VB, and they are methods of a 
class, not keywords.

Otherwise, I try to limit the number of keywords as much as possible.

> > (2) I find your VALIDATE / UNSUCCESSFUL... useless, as you introduce a
> > lot of syntactic sugar for something that is actually not so frequent.
> 
> VALIDATE / UNSUCCESSFUL (they could be other words) allow that
> programmer don't have to write getters and setters or properties
> unnecessarily. For example, if you define un attribute as part of
> class interface is obvious that you want allow its value can be
> readed; so, why you have to write a getter?
> 
> Similarly, that attribute must be set. So, why write a setter or
> _Write method attached to a property?
> 
> Ok, you just can define it as PUBLIC and, at least in principle, the
> encapsulation would be assured; but, further changes could be more
> difficult to do: programmer should change PUBLIC by PRIVATE on this
> attribute, define getters and setters or (worse) a property and _READ,
> _WRITE methods.
> 
> Instead, using INTERFACE/IMPLEMENTATION and VALIDATE only would be
> necessary to add a validation.

It is what I meant: a special syntax to define something not so frequent. You 
take the case where your "property" is actually just a bit more than a 
variable. This is actually rarely the case. Reading is often just returning 
the contents of a variable, but writing is usually more complex. I don't know 
how to cover all possible cases with less keywords than the current syntax.

> 
> > (3) On the other hand, it might be a good idea to allow the user to
> > separate the public and the private thing.
> > 
> > Note that I am not agree with the common separation between "interface"
> > and "implementation". In the real life, they are not separated. A good
> > interface usually leads directly to the implementation. Or the interface
> > surface from a good implementation. :-)
> 
> I don't understand you. In the real life there are many examples as
> one and the other: your clothing is an interface and is not part of
> you, but your skin is an interface too that is part of you.

When I mean "real life", I mean "real programming life". :-)

> 
> Anyway, actually in Gambas the declaration of interface and
> implementation are separated by PUBLIC, PRIVATE and PROPERTY keywords.
> 
> > Doriano's idea may be good: when PUBLIC or PRIVATE is alone on his line,
> > everything after is declared PUBLIC (or PRIVATE) by default. That way,
> > you can
> 
> > write:
> Oh! That is my idea and I'm going to patent it. :-P
> 
> (read below of "or much better")
> 
> http://old.nabble.com/Ideas4Gambas-to28782834.html

Sorry, I didn't know you were the father. :-)

Regards,

-- 
Benoît Minisini