On 2/28/06, mental@[...].net <mental@[...].net>  wrote:
>  Quoting chiaro scuro <kiaroskuro@[...].com>:
> 
>  > I understand that it has been implemented statically, and that
>  > the whole mechanism would need changing, but don't you agree that
>  > this syntactic tagging and static interpretation of '=' is a kind
>  > of defensive programming that we could do well without?
> 
>  It's not a matter of being defensive... because variables and method
>  names are gramatically different, there are some constructs where
>  one is (gramatically) valid but not the other.  The decision has to
>  be made up-front, or the grammar drastically revised.

What I meant is that a feature of this grammar forces us to use this
style of programming.

I believe we can do without this style, because the rationale to
support it (without looking at the implementation details) is a
defensive programming argument.

I understand this would involve heavy work on the grammar.

Thanks for all your replies and explanations.  I am trying to get you
to agree on the fact that an '=' dynamic semantic lookup would be a
nice thing to have :-)

--

-- Chiaroscuro --
Liquid Development Blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/liquiddevelopment