It’s silly to have so many keyword synonyms as specified in that earlier regex. I’m also glad we can’t specify numeric literals as roman numerals. KISS
Honestly I’d prefer if “yes” and “no” were the only ways to spell the boolean values. They make sense in pretty much all contexts where booleans are used, whereas “true” and “false” rarely make sense.
In boolean logic true/false is ubiquitious and well known.
As you can see, if one tries to be cute with it, one will get all sorts of issues.
So at this point it doesnt make sense to use anything else.
The true/false terminology makes sense in boolean logic because you’re dealing with the truth of propositions. However, it does not make sense in the context of a configuration language, where there are no propositions that could be true or false.
It makes sense in the context of a configuration language because virtually 100% of programmers and other technical computer users understand “true” and “false” as the canonical Boolean values, and as far as I know that has always been the case. It never would have made sense to invent different unfamiliar terms like “yes” and “no” because of some niche philosophical distinction between “Boolean logic” and “configuration” that almost nobody in the real world cares about.
They are familiar as English words, yes, but unfamiliar as terms of art for Boolean values in computing. It’d be like replacing “if” statements with “whenever” statements.
The fix is to make conversion user-controllable. If you want to disallow bare scalars except for booleans and numbers or whatever, it's just a little bit of configuration away.
Logging: no could also be log in norwegian. Or log only for the norwegian region. That's the thing with too many keywords and optional quoting, you can't know.
And for this reason, "logging: false" would be clearer than "logging: no" to represent "I do not want logging".
`false` could be a code for something else just as well as `no`. For example, it could mean that I only want to see logs of false information appearing in the system. The only proper solution is to require quotes around strings.
The other important bit here is garbage collection.
Local and anonymous functions that capture lexical environments really, really work much better in languages built around GCs.
Without garbage collection a trivial closure (as in javascript or lisps) suddenly needs to make a lot of decisions around referencing data that can be either on the stack or in the heap.
Yes, C++ is a great example of having to make decisions that don't have good solutions without a GC or something like. See mentions of undefined behaviour in relevant sections of the standard, i.e. when a lambda captures something with a limited lifetime.
Are you saying that Haskell doesn't have lexical environments? It very much does, just as all major languages of the ML language family do.
I think you're quite underestimating how many times a person takes their phone out and it's way more than they turn their wrist around to see their watch
No, but when discussing laws against murder, we should not assume that they would eliminate murder. This article does assume that laws against advertising would eliminate advertising.
reply