Targeting C

[Yigal Chripun]

On 23/10/2009 18:29, bearophile wrote:
> Yigal Chripun:
>
>> Ranges are already part of the compiler because of foreach, can we
>> also add language support for Range literals?
>
> In both iota and other possible implementations I'd like the
> arguments used by Python range/xrange, they are optimal, and better
> than the currently ones used by iota.
>
> And being ranges lazy and eager (strict) so common, I may want both
> versions, so I don't need array(iota(...)) (all this is present in my
> dlibs). What about xiota for the lazy version? Or maybe aiota for the
> eager version? :-)
>
> Bye, bearophile


Hell no. This is why I hate certain programming languages.
if you are trying to obfuscate the language than why not just define:
rtqfrdsg and fdkjtkf as the function names?

names are important and they must be readable (in English. 
latin/greek/hindu/klingon/etc are not accepted). I don't care if I need 
to type ten letters instead of just five if later on I can understand 
immediately what the code does instead of spending half an hour reading 
the (outdated) documentation if I even bothered to write one.