Posted by
Laura Tweedy on
URL: http://ibm-netrexx.48.s1.nabble.com/Since-NetRexx-is-Java-tp678080p678086.html
>
> while I could find acceptable the introdution of a new keyword, like
> 'itself' (or 'it', 'that', whatever) for example, as in:
>
> You_dont_want_a_name_longer_than_this = itself + 1
>
> because it would show which is the object that the calculation is
> based upon.
>
Both this and the "var + 1" syntax are much more intuitive, IMO,
than "+=". However of the two, I would prefer
Long_var_name = itself + 1
as above, simply because I'm used to seeing assignments in the form
var = var + 1
With "var + 1", I think we run into the same kind of obscurity
that ++ has. With "var + 1", my immediate thought is, "where does the
result go?" Granted with adding one, it's fairly obvious, but
a + b
is not nearly as clear.
My vote is for Max's suggestion.
Cheers.
laura
--
Laura Tweedy ::
[hidden email]
Peacefully discovering
the path I wish to take...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe from this mailing list ( ibm-netrexx ), please send a note to
[hidden email]
with the following message in the body of the note
unsubscribe ibm-netrexx <e-mail address>