Re: FYI: default %printer/%destructor

[Joel E. Denny]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Hans Aberg wrote:

> > > Suppose, just to focus on something, the latter have symbols #, %.
> > > Then one would end up on combinations like:
> > >   a(name1): b c() d(@#name2) e($#%name3)
> > 
> > I would prefer:
> > 
> >   a(name1): b c() d(@name2, #name2) e($name3, #name3, %name3)
> > 
> > That is, (name1) makes all attributes available.  If you want a specific
> > subset, list the items in that subset.
> > 
> > Yes, we're back to the previous verbosity, but I think it's not terrible,
> > I think it's better than ($#%name), and we appear to have no need for it
> > any time soon anyway.
> 
> I think that all that makes the grammar rues harder to read should be
> avoided.

Yes, more information will always do that.

> Also, it is good if the user as far as possible
> can avoid writing repetitions.

So, something like:

  a(name1): b c() d(name2[@,#]) e(name3[$,#,%])
  
Still ugly, but I like it better than ($#%name), which looks like one long 
cryptic variable.

Well, I think we're getting ahead of ourselves.  The notation I've 
proposed seems to cleanly accommodate what we need now.  I think there are 
several possible ways to extend it if necessary in the future.