🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 Oct 1995, Christopher R. Volpe wrote:

> >A constant is permitted, right?
> 
> Yep. Too bad we don't have one.

My point is that we do not have anything but alfabetsoup before 
evaluation. You are expecting a compiler to know the meaningfulness
of random characters without letting it actually read it ? Then by what 
method shall we find the hidden comma expression (Or any other doubtful 
expression, including the works of Shakespeare)? Intuitively, but in no 
way proven, this would involve parsing of a yet unknown nature.

Or to put it another way: At what time of compile are we going to tell 
the user that his code is way off?  

1) When we know what it means.

2) Before we know what it means. 

This Is important since the expression we are discussing changes 
drastically after evaluation.

You found the comma, and you realized that it did not belong there. This 
is fantastic (no sarkasm here, I do believe life is beutiful) but I can't 
see any way of formalising this general ability into a machine method. 

And the point here is that we are not only discussing a single special 
case, but also trying to cope with empty statements in general.

If this means that the wordings must be slightly changed to fit reality 
then please go ahead, but as I see it, it is matter of *when* the 
standard is to be consulted rather than how, where all we seems to agree 
upon is that at least it should be after opening the file. 

// Jens M Andreasen         (representing noone but ... you guessed it)