That's the kind of thinking that makes the C++ standard unreadable to most. I started out reading and memorizing※ the original casually-written Annotated Reference Manual. As things got more formal, a casual word would be replaced with the more formal phrase, everywhere. Then more qualifiers were added, such as "non-cv-qualified" and so on. If you didn't already know what it meant, it's thick goo.
I would envision a spec that used clear and mostly terse terminology. Like Perl itself, make the most common terms short. Rather than a dozen adjectives followed by X, make that whole thing called something, and the less-constrained (rarely used) version be decorated instead.
—John
※: I impressed many, including Stroustrup himself, with my ability to name the chapter and verse where a particular feature was described, so everyone else at the table could turn to it. I was young then. | [reply] |
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
That's the kind of thinking that makes the C++ standard unreadable to most.
I just downloaded the latest draft and took a look for the first time since trying to make some sense of it back around '95--which probably means I've looked at it two times more than your average C++ programmer.
And wow; the intervening 15 years haven't exactly clarified things have they.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
I've written 200 pages (standard letter size, small type) explaining and elaborating on it. The Guru's Handbook.
| [reply] |
