. the expression (www.the.com)
is same as (www#the#com)
except that with (www.the.com)
you know the component selectors are literals,
whereas with (www#the#com),
(the) and (com) are likely variables .
. a record field works like a based pointer,
just as an array index does,
except that the distance between components
is not constant .
. records (and even arrays)
can have their components reached literally
via something other than (#)
and the example of (www.the.com)
suggests the dot should be reused for that .
. this way it works like numbers, too:
they have 2 literal parts {frac, int}
connected by a dot
-- a model even more common than url's .
. the use of dots is well-understood,
it looks neat,
and it's easy to reach on the kybd
-- much more so than (`)
(the possessive operator).
. how can reuse of the dot then avoid
confusion with types decl's?
-- eg, A.1 vs A.anArrayType --
it requires that the entire type`name`space
is barred from being reused as a component`name;
ie, if a name already stands for a type,
it can't be used as the name for any component .
. that would be easy if there was a rule like
(type`names must be capitalized),
-- as it is in math --
but most would rather write .int than .Z .
4.29: web.adda/terminology/based pointer:
. what is term for what I like to call
offset pointer? based pointer
4.28: adda/dstr/array-record equivalence:
. wondering why records and arrays
should vary their syntax from each other:
an array is simply a record where
all components are the same type,
yet array#field
vs record`field ?
. but, in database design -- a fundamental --
there's the idea of the multiples (arrays)
vs the units (records);
just as both fractions and integers
may have the same use of digits
but nevertheless very different roles .
. look at the entire lifetime of their use,
including decl's, and the other use of (`),
is it complementary ?
. t.type: <. `f, `+, + .>
; a#.t -- a#.<. `f, `+, + .>
; r.(x.t, y.s) --. a record .
; p/.(x.t, y.s) --. pointer to same .
; b.t --. declares { b`f, b`+, b+... }.
; a#1, r#x, p/x, b`x .
. where did I get the idea that
the operator(`) could be reserved for
self-modifiers?
. can't an aggregate component be a function?
then it works just like in a type def':
when a function is part of an agg'
it has access to every other component of that agg' .
b`++, b#f(x)
. the agg' declarations themselves
don't have hidden locals;
but, if a type def includes an agg' def,
then it defines an agg whose
component functions could be accessing hidden locals .
4.19: adda/cstr/rom-address-mode params:
. [pass by ref] (aka address-mode)
is often more efficient
but in some lang's [pass by copy] (aka value-mode)
is the only sure way to know inputs aren't modified .
. the interface should make clear to the compiler
whether a certain operation is modifying or not;
only then can the compiler be efficiently helpful .
4.20:
functionals have an interface like this:
f(x), f(l,r),
whereas mutators appear like this:
`f, `++, `*(x), `+(x) .
more 2nd-thoughts for use of dot notation:
4.22: todo.adda/type/filter-class generic types:
. studying c++'s generic types, eg atomic:
http://bartoszmilewski.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/c-atomics-and-memory-ordering/
adda's syntax for the parameterized type would be:
atomic(your.type).type: ...
. a generic is normally used like this:
i.atomic(int)
-- i is a version of atomic.type --
but why not i.atomic.int ?
atomic is an important example
of a special class of generic type
in which it offers as output
the same type as was input
providing a modified but nevertheless compatible semantics .
. they would be modeled after arrays,
a#.int
which has so far escaped definition
due to its being a primitive type .
todo:
review how #(x).t, (x).t, /.t
are similar and different,
and how there can be a syntax
for defining a generic array type
had the system not already done it .
. review the named pointer theory
since it has the most in common with that .
4.20: adda/type/more use of multiple dots:
. here's another place where double typing is needed:
msg.Channel.String;
. the var"msg represents a channel
through which is passed obj's of type"string .
. it's like the array, msg#.String,
being a sort of container of strings
but numerous in the time domain
vs space domain .
other lexical change ideas:
4.22: adda/operators/ancestor scope:
. my current system defines a local as
a symbol that includes a type specification;
but, aren't there times when you'd like to
rename or otherwise access an external
as something like:
"( give me the x from however many levels above
that has this particular type) ?
. one way to do that is with a new symbol:
just as the current system allows
../x.t to mean parent scope's object of type x.t,
.../x.t could mean the same but
for any ancestor scope .
4.20: adda/numeric base syntax:
. hex could folow both dimensional syntax and subscript syntax
by treating (space)#(integer) as dimension;
eg, 7FFF #16 or (ART)#32 .
-- using either the space or the parenthetical
is needed to avoid confusing A#16
with the 16th item an array named A .
. an array would allow spacing the other way:
A# 16 -- rather than:
A #16 .
4.12: adda/cstr/pointer arithmetic:
. my first idea for distinguishing between
arithmetic on a pointer vs their targets
was to use an explicit dereference operator;
but ambiguity happens rarely
-- only when the target is a numeric type
and the operation is one that applies to pointers --
so, another idea is to use attribute syntax
to indicate when the operation is on the address .
. my first idea was ptr`addr + i,
but `addr should take the addr of the symbol;
my subsequent idea was to use array notation,
since that is what pointer arithmetic is doing:
ptr#i = ptr + i .
