Hacker News Reader

Comment by bboygravity | Hacker News Reader

That's genious IMO. Making sure the amount of opening and closing parantheses is equal is annoying and unnecesary.

It screams "trust me all good with the closing parantheses".

I disagree. I would say when I get an unbalanced paren compiler error, it's more common for the omission to not be at the end of the line. Having the compiler silently swallow the error would lead to serious bugs very quickly.

    if ((v1.x()-v2.x())*(v1.x()-v2.x())+(v1.y()-v2.y())*(v1.y())-v2.y())+(v1.z()-v2.z())*(v1.z()-v2.z()) > distance*distance) {
        // collision
    }

Would you like this to fail to compile? Or would you prefer it to silently return the wrong value?

I'd prefer the compiler file an HR complaint against the author.

if collisioncheck(v1,v2, distance) { // collision }

where you have defined an actually readable equivalent inside of collisioncheck would be my prerogative... I also agree paren matching failures should error, but your example is NOT why.

What if I wanted to copy that expression and use is as part of a different expression?

Interactive prompts already do that. Eg if you google "2+2)*3" it will correctly print "12". This effectively lets you append operations to an expression without editing both sides.

On the other hand, auto closing parentheses in code is a terrible idea for obvious reasons. There are only like 7 languages used in industry and they all have excellent tooling that integrates with your editor to eliminate issues like this.

paredit and rainbow parens makes it a non-issue for me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com