Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Which is exactly what computer languages are for | 214 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Which is exactly what computer languages are for

Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 09:46 AM EDT

Of course it is. And operator overloading just emphasizes the point. In some
languages, not only can you not distinguish an API from any other element of the
language, but parts of the API may suddenly become parts of the language,
without changing anything. Tcl is an example where this has happened.

Language -- API. Basically variations of the same thing.

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Which is exactly what computer languages are for

Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 01:55 PM EDT

x=a+b" is just syntactic sugar for (roughly) "x.set(a.add(b))"

hehe -- what if a and b are strings?
That's where the 'roughly' comes into play?

bjd

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Which is exactly what computer languages are for - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:25 AM EDT

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )