Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!ljdickey From: ljdickey@watmath.UUCP (Lee Dickey) Newsgroups: net.lang.apl,net.lang.c,net.lang.lisp,net.lang.pascal,net.lang.mod2,net.lang.prolog,net.lang.st80 Subject: Re: Language Idioms Message-ID: <11450@watmath.UUCP> Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 08:19:32 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.11450 Posted: Wed Feb 13 08:19:32 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Feb-85 00:45:36 EST References: <764@utcsrgv.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 18 Xref: watmath net.lang.apl:128 net.lang.c:4354 net.lang.lisp:317 net.lang.pascal:236 net.lang.mod2:162 net.lang.prolog:447 net.lang.st80:192 A recent writer says: > ...... I want to talk about programming idioms. > These are code sequences which produce some useful non-obvious result. I react when I see the word ``idiom'' used this way. To me, an idiom is a set of works which, when combined, have a meaning that cannot be deduced from the meanings of all of the constituent parts. For instance, the meaning of the phrase ``Fat chance!'' is not likely to be discovered by someone with a dictionary. I am not saying that we, as programmers, should not have certain common phrases that we use often. We do. Nor am I saying that what we write must always be immeadiately obvious to a beginning programmer in a survey course that touches on several different languages. But, is there any serious programmer who advocates the introduction of new meanings for programming phrases that are different from the combined meanings of the constituent parts?