Differentiate const flavors using CASE?
Derek Parnell
derek at nomail.afraid.org
Wed Mar 21 17:47:24 PDT 2007
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:33:00 -0700, Benji Smith wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:53:26 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's a random thought:
>>>> What about const vs CONST?
>>>> The upcase version obviously being the more const of the two.
>>>> The original proposal played with punctuation, and we've talked
>>>> plenty about spelling, but we haven't talked about playing with
>>>> case. It would be an odd-ball among keywords, admittedly, but if you
>>>> asked 100 people which of 'const' and 'CONST' was the most constant
>>>> you'd probably get 100 votes for 'CONST'. And he could become good
>>>> friends with foreach_reverse, the other odd-ball keyword who is
>>>> disparaged by the other kids because of his obesity and the big
>>>> staple in his belly button.
>>>
>>> LOL ... Now that *is* funny.
>>
>> Yah :o). Speaking of foreach_reverse, probably it would be wise to lobby
>> Walter to deprecate it in favor of foreach(reverse) (item ; collection)
>> { ... }. The keyword(extra) syntax is definitely becoming a D signature
>> syntax.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> What do you call that little non-keyword in parens when you refer to it
> in your parsing code? If it's not a keyword or an operator or an
> identifier, how do you refer to it?
>
> Just curious.
An adornment/ornamentation/embellishment maybe?
--
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Justice for David Hicks!"
22/03/2007 11:45:23 AM
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list