Re: Assignment operators and continuation tokens (was: Re: new octave)

[Bill Denney]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, John W. Eaton wrote:

> On  3-Mar-2006, Miquel Cabanas wrote:
>
> | octave:3> myfilter =
> | parse error:
> |
> |   syntax error
> |
> | >>> myfilter =
> |               ^
> |
> | I assume there must be a good reason to keep this exception.
>
> I'm not sure that there is a good reason.  Should we consider making
> it possible?  What about other binary operators?  Note that it won't
> be possible to write
>
>  some_variable
>    = some_other_expression + another_expression + and_another;
>
> without a continuation, because "some_variable" is a valid expression
> by itself.

To me, the automatic continuation within a closure (I think I'm using the 
word correctly-- I mean within (), [], {}, etc.) makes sense and is 
readable, but outside of these, it doesn't make sense to me and decreases 
code readability.

Bill

--
Warning label at MIT's Junior Lab:
"WARNING: Do not look into laser with remaining eye"
  -- /usr/bin/fortune



-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:  http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects:  http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information:  http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------