Re: Style geekcode

[rob_au]

in reply to Style geekcode

A couple of things that stood out with this geek stylecode ... Hrmmm, geek and style, is that a contradiction of terms in itself? ... Anyhow ...

• The ++ denotation within the whitespace around operators seems without merit - This is because while the prefix and postfix increment operands perform the same task, their order differs and as such, depending on the code, are not stylistically interchangeable.

• The == denotation within the whitespace around operators is duplicated by the gt denotation because in fact, after all, == is just another equality test.

• The variable and sub names denotation is quite neat, although I think the parentheses for plurality is redundant if px would suffice (where x is the descriptor code to apply to scalars, hashes and arrays) - For example, Vp(s0h0a0) should be able to be reduced to Vp0.

 

Very nifty though ... Juerd++

 

I4 Os1 ;0 S,><.><+>**<=><&&><and><gt> B1
L1 C2 P2 N< R1 Vc1a2p(s0h0a0)r0d2 Hsw2T sub-main

[Juerd]

Hrmmm, geek and style, is that a contradiction of terms in itself?

I like to think so ;)

* The ++ denotation within the whitespace around operators seems without merit

I knew I had to document it better (will do). It's just the difference between $foo++ and $foo ++ - choose any direction ;)

# The == denotation within the whitespace around operators is duplicated by the gt denotation because in fact, after all, == is just another equality test.

I separated them because I have seen someone consequently use "$foo > $bar" and "$foo==$bar"

* For example, Vp(s0h0a0) should be able to be reduced to Vp0.

Perhaps, but that would make the rules very complex, and I think that if someone's going to parse, a simple regex will have to be able to do the job ;)

U28geW91IGNhbiBhbGwgcm90MTMgY
W5kIHBhY2soKS4gQnV0IGRvIHlvdS
ByZWNvZ25pc2UgQmFzZTY0IHdoZW4
geW91IHNlZSBpdD8gIC0tIEp1ZXJk