B
Booted Cat
I've seen lots of discussions on the proposed inclusion of "function
call with named arguments" to C/C++ on these newsgroups. My proposal
is slightly different in that:
* No ANSI approval is needed
* No conflicts with existing language features such as function
overloading
* No need to modify the language spec or the compiler
* No need to modify your source code
As you may have guessed, I think it possible to make this a feature of
the IDE.
A first thought was to keep the argument order as specified by the
function declaration, but allow the editing and viewing of function
arguments in a named manner. That is to say, the argument list is
displayed as a closeable table immediately after every function call.
The table include argument names and fields where you can view or fill
the value or expression for each argument. But the tables are just
visual effects of the code editor window, and the source code is
stored in the original format in memory and on disk.
If you also want customized argument order, the order information can
be saved by the IDE as special comments in the source file, or as a
seperate non-source file included by your project file.
Another idea of mine is also about programming language design,
although a bit theoretical. It's about a freer syntax. The idea comes
from my research on controlled language design and translation (the
BabelCode methodology); controlled natural languages and programming
languages have something in common that is they're both formal
languages. We know modern programming language design is evolving
toward a goal of "programming like speaking a natural language"; OOP
has unleashed the most of the semantic potential of programming
languages, but the syntactic freedom still has room to improve.
A typical C function call (enhanced by the "named argument" feature)
is like this:
myfunc(arg1 value1, arg2 value2, ...);
Compared to English syntax, myfunc is like the main verb of a
sentence, and argvalues are the subject, the objects (dierct and
indirect, argument name omitted unless in passive voice),
prepositional phrases (argument names are the preposition, values are
the prepositional objects), adverbials (presence of argument name is a
flag delivering a boolean value) and nonfinite verb phrases (passing
function pointers). This is like the freeform case-based natural
languages such as Russian and German. In OOP programming languages
like C++, the "subject" or "object" argument is isolated and put
before the "main verb", the other arguments being remained in the
argument list:
subject.myfunc(arg2 value2, arg3 value3, ...);
This way it's more like how we form a natural language sentence. But
note that this is only in favor of English-like syntax. Many natural
languages even including English prefer to place some prepostional
phrases before the main verb. The Chinese language prefer:
subject.(arg2 value2, arg3, value3, ..., myfunc objvalue, ...);
Russian and German prefer the "good old C function call" style:
.(arg2 value2, subjvalue, arg3 value3, myfunc, ..., OBJ objvalue,
....);
What's worse, many Chinese monolingual speakers can't distinguish the
v.t. part-of-speech from the prep part-of-speech. In their eyes, these
are both "relational words with an object and belonging to a
predicate" so they're likely to take a PP (viewed from English) such
as "with" for the main verb. This makes me to try break the POS
difference between prep and vt and treat them as equal entities. So
Chinese speakers may prefer this syntax:
subject.argx(valuex, arg1 value1, arg2 value2, ..., myfunc objvalue,
....);
Some programming languages are promoting the idea of "everything is an
object", and here "argument names" also become objects, at least with
equal syntactic status to that of the function name.
The above discussion shows that:
1. The SUBJECT argument may not necessarily come first;
2. Virtually any argument can play the role of "main verb" (function
name);
3. There may not necessarily be a distinct place for "main verb", in
languages that sometimes don't distinguish verbs from preps.
4. The order of arguments should be able to vary.
Handling such function call syntax is technically possible as long as
the real "main verb" identifier can be found.
Although this syntatic freedom is more significant to my controlled
language authoring and translation project, it does have some use in
programming languages. Take an example from the C library function
memcpy:
void *memcpy(
void *dest,
const void *src,
size_t count
);
We would be able to call it in these ways:
memcpy(to p2; from p1; amount count); // the original order
memcpy(amount count; from p1; to p2); // the english order
(from p1; memcpy amout count; to p2); // the chinese order
....
Yao Ziyuan
call with named arguments" to C/C++ on these newsgroups. My proposal
is slightly different in that:
* No ANSI approval is needed
* No conflicts with existing language features such as function
overloading
* No need to modify the language spec or the compiler
* No need to modify your source code
As you may have guessed, I think it possible to make this a feature of
the IDE.
A first thought was to keep the argument order as specified by the
function declaration, but allow the editing and viewing of function
arguments in a named manner. That is to say, the argument list is
displayed as a closeable table immediately after every function call.
The table include argument names and fields where you can view or fill
the value or expression for each argument. But the tables are just
visual effects of the code editor window, and the source code is
stored in the original format in memory and on disk.
If you also want customized argument order, the order information can
be saved by the IDE as special comments in the source file, or as a
seperate non-source file included by your project file.
Another idea of mine is also about programming language design,
although a bit theoretical. It's about a freer syntax. The idea comes
from my research on controlled language design and translation (the
BabelCode methodology); controlled natural languages and programming
languages have something in common that is they're both formal
languages. We know modern programming language design is evolving
toward a goal of "programming like speaking a natural language"; OOP
has unleashed the most of the semantic potential of programming
languages, but the syntactic freedom still has room to improve.
A typical C function call (enhanced by the "named argument" feature)
is like this:
myfunc(arg1 value1, arg2 value2, ...);
Compared to English syntax, myfunc is like the main verb of a
sentence, and argvalues are the subject, the objects (dierct and
indirect, argument name omitted unless in passive voice),
prepositional phrases (argument names are the preposition, values are
the prepositional objects), adverbials (presence of argument name is a
flag delivering a boolean value) and nonfinite verb phrases (passing
function pointers). This is like the freeform case-based natural
languages such as Russian and German. In OOP programming languages
like C++, the "subject" or "object" argument is isolated and put
before the "main verb", the other arguments being remained in the
argument list:
subject.myfunc(arg2 value2, arg3 value3, ...);
This way it's more like how we form a natural language sentence. But
note that this is only in favor of English-like syntax. Many natural
languages even including English prefer to place some prepostional
phrases before the main verb. The Chinese language prefer:
subject.(arg2 value2, arg3, value3, ..., myfunc objvalue, ...);
Russian and German prefer the "good old C function call" style:
.(arg2 value2, subjvalue, arg3 value3, myfunc, ..., OBJ objvalue,
....);
What's worse, many Chinese monolingual speakers can't distinguish the
v.t. part-of-speech from the prep part-of-speech. In their eyes, these
are both "relational words with an object and belonging to a
predicate" so they're likely to take a PP (viewed from English) such
as "with" for the main verb. This makes me to try break the POS
difference between prep and vt and treat them as equal entities. So
Chinese speakers may prefer this syntax:
subject.argx(valuex, arg1 value1, arg2 value2, ..., myfunc objvalue,
....);
Some programming languages are promoting the idea of "everything is an
object", and here "argument names" also become objects, at least with
equal syntactic status to that of the function name.
The above discussion shows that:
1. The SUBJECT argument may not necessarily come first;
2. Virtually any argument can play the role of "main verb" (function
name);
3. There may not necessarily be a distinct place for "main verb", in
languages that sometimes don't distinguish verbs from preps.
4. The order of arguments should be able to vary.
Handling such function call syntax is technically possible as long as
the real "main verb" identifier can be found.
Although this syntatic freedom is more significant to my controlled
language authoring and translation project, it does have some use in
programming languages. Take an example from the C library function
memcpy:
void *memcpy(
void *dest,
const void *src,
size_t count
);
We would be able to call it in these ways:
memcpy(to p2; from p1; amount count); // the original order
memcpy(amount count; from p1; to p2); // the english order
(from p1; memcpy amout count; to p2); // the chinese order
....
Yao Ziyuan