Welcome to the Parallax Discussion Forums, sign-up to participate.

cgracey
Posts: **12,414**

Here is what I've got, so far. I'm not sure how this aligns with other languages, but it's open for review so we can maximize the sweet spot:

The equality operators can no longer be used as assignment modifiers (i.e. "x >= y" assigns x>y to x). This allows both versions of =>/>= and =</<=.

The idea here is that any of the "unary" operators could also be used alone with a variable to modify the variable.

Any of the "binary" operators could be used after a variable and then followed with an "=" to create a self-modifying assignment (i.e. x += 3).

Op Example Type Description ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOT NOT x unary Boolean NOT (0 = -1, non-0 = 0) ! !x unary Bitwise NOT, 1's complement - -x unary Negation, 2's complement || ||x unary Absolute value >| >|x unary Encode MSB, 0..31 |< |<x unary Decode, 1 shl (x & $1F) ~ ~x unary Sign-extend from bit 7 ~~ ~~x unary Sign-extend from bit 15 SQRT SQRT x unary Square root LOG LOG x unary Unsigned to logarithm EXP EXP x unary Logarithm to unsigned AND x AND y binary Boolean AND (x <> 0 AND y <> 0, returns 0 or -1) OR x OR y binary Boolean OR (x <> 0 OR y <> 0, returns 0 or -1) & x & y binary Bitwise AND | x | y binary Bitwise OR ^ x ^ y binary Bitwise XOR >> x >> y binary Shift right << x << y binary Shift left ~> x ~> y binary Shift arithmetic right <~ x <~ y binary Shift arithmetic left -> x -> y binary Rotate right <- x <- y binary Rotate left >< x >< y binary Reverse y LSBs of x and zero-extend #> x #> y binary Ensure x => y <# x <# y binary Ensure x <= y + x + y binary Add - x - y binary Subtract * x * y binary Multiply / x / y binary Divide, return quotient // x // y binary Divide, return remainder ** x ** y binary Scale, unsigned (x * y) >> 32 */ x */ y binary Fraction, unsigned {x, 32'b0}/y < x < y equality Check less than, returns 0 or -1 =<, <= x <= y equality Check equal or less than, returns 0 or -1 == x == y equality Check equal, returns 0 or -1 <> x <> y equality Check not equal, returns 0 or -1 =>, >= x => y equality Check equal or greater than, returns 0 or -1 > x > y equality Check greater than, returns 0 or -1

The equality operators can no longer be used as assignment modifiers (i.e. "x >= y" assigns x>y to x). This allows both versions of =>/>= and =</<=.

The idea here is that any of the "unary" operators could also be used alone with a variable to modify the variable.

Any of the "binary" operators could be used after a variable and then followed with an "=" to create a self-modifying assignment (i.e. x += 3).

## Comments

2,408edit: I'm not arguing that they should be added. Just confirming that they weren't accidentally left off the list.

22,541-Phil

12,414I just didn't list those. We'll get to them.

12,414That thought occurred to me, too, but I'm not sure what I think about it.

10,22613,69610,226So, that's better than <= where it gives no error but doesn't do what you might think...

BTW: Noticed Lua uses "~=", which I think is slightly worse than "<>"

2,750It resolves my main gripe with the Spin1 operators (the <= and >= ones).

21,233There is a chorus of calls to harmonize the Spin 2 operators with other common languages, C/C++, C#, Java, Javascript, Perl etc....

This makes a lot of sense as it removes a lot of confusion for those coming to Spin from other languages. There is no particular reason why Spin operators should be different. Given the other huge changes to Spin/PASM that break all pre-existing code now is the time to harmonize the operators.

Of course Spin is syntactically very different from those other languages, but those differences are more obvious. The operator confusion is, well, confusing.

Personally I think all the other "non-standard" operators should have a function style syntax, MAX(), ROT(), etc. Makes things much more readable.

2,750So, while I said I was happy in the last message, I think I would be happier with the additional change Heater suggests.

2,408My only concern with this, though, is that you now have reserved function names. While it might not be an issue with Spin 2, you potentially cause conflicts if you and more reserved function names in Spin 3 (and so on). So... what if Spin 2 (and beyond) used a different syntax for these functions. For instance, would it be okay to have something like:

This would serve two purposes:

* Ensure that new functions could be added without conflicts

* Make it it obvious which functions are intrinsic to the interpreter

(edit: don't get fixated on the use of braces. I just used those because it wasn't parentheses. In reality, braces won't work because they're already used for comment blocks.)

1,930"if x<-5" *should* evaluate identically to "if x < -5", but it doesn't.

Maybe <<< and >>> instead? Those to me read much more like "special shifts" than <- and ->.

I'm with David on supporting one or the other for the inequality ops - supporting both is worse.

I'm torn on sign extension - in C, the ~ operator is binary not, so to me, "~1" means "0xFE" (as a byte). I like the compactness of the sign extension operators, but find them hard to read. In C that's typically done just by type casting. For example, to sign extend something you'd do this:

It could be done shorter as builtin functions:

That would allow making ! be logical not, which is how most languages do it, though Python uses "not", so there's less consensus here.

For #> and <#, if you're supporting built-in functions, maybe max() and min() ? I always found the syntax of these really hard to read. x = max(x, 0), or x = min(x, 10) is pretty normal.

2,408You know, that one surprises me. The docs say that negate has precedence over rotate-left.

22,541That looks more like lambda notation, e.g. Lisp.

-Phil

2,408Yeah, I thought about that when I was typing it. I was just looking for something that wasn't

x(y). I suppose you could dox{y}, but that looks weird (to me, at least). Suggestions welcome!21,233Languages like C will produce different bit patterns in the result depending on the type of thing being shifted. Signed integers get the sign bit propagated down. Unsigned shifts zeros into the top.

Spin only has signed LONGs so there is a problem there.

Javascript gets around this, yes it can deal with 32 bit integers, by providing:

>>, Shift right propagating the sign bit down from bit 31. (Signed)

>>>, Shift right filling the top with zero bits. (Unsigned)

This is the way to go in Spin I think.

1,930It'd be worth testing that, just to be sure. I know I've been bitten by a number of these in the past, but it's possible that this particular case isn't one of them. That said, the fact that "x <- 5" isn't necessarily the same as "x<-5" is just as bad.

14,240Yes, I agree with this approach. Expressions are easier to scan that way.

Yes, that is simply broken.

Yes, I'll find a list of how others that use function syntax manage this already.

14,240Below is a collection of other languages added in the

fName, Op Usecolumns.In most cases there is an easy alignment, and I think the BSR, BSL can be used, along with SAR,SAL

You may need to add BSL for symmetry, if PASM has the equivalent ?

I'm not sure if Spin LOG is natural, or base 10 ?, but others have both LOG() and LN()

Comments is another area, and the

// as comment EOLis now pretty much universal.I've found cases where

both(* *) and /* */ are also allowed/tolerated for block comments.Allowing

nested commentsis also a good language idea.22,541-Phil

21,233Any combination of weird symbols that gets the job done is as good as any other.

My point is that there is no particular reason to use a different combination of weird symbols than millions of other programmers around the world use. Especially if one might want to attract those people into the fold and make their life easy.

Hmm...Having said that. "~>" is not fine at all. The "~" is often taken as a "NOT". The ">" is a obviously "greater than". So at first glance it looks like a "not greater than".

It's just awful.

14,240To me, all of this

"It's just awful"&"Although I do wish"teeth gnashing is readily solved by merelyaddingthe word operators SHR,SHL,ASR,ASLNo conflicts there, so those can co-exist even without a mode switch. Looks like BSR and BSL can also be added.

21,23314,240I have one example in front of me that

doesinclude ADD() as an alias for +.Yes, at first glance that seems silly, but then they allow ADD,SUB as a graphical element in the graphical entry schemes, and ADD,SUB also works for records like Time types.

All makes good sense, when you see the real examples in front of you.

The key point here is they are

aliases, so you are perfectly free to use + and -, like we always have.21,233Going from "x + y" to "ADD(x, y)" is not just an alias. It's a total syntactic rearrangement.

Or do you mean "x ADD y" ?

We could do that is C++ with some #defines and operator overloading.

Too weird.

2,408Not to mention the symmetry with PASM.

(edit: further, given Parallax's educational leanings, wouldn't the removal of all operators, except maybe assignment, be better? Operators are comparatively opaque and can often get novices, and sometimes experts, in trouble without even knowing it.)

21,2333,872No, no, your first expression should be: S expressions all the way .

2,230It's the normal syntax in Spin for float expressions:

21,233Ha! Yes. Let's turn SPIN into LISP. Or Scheme perhaps.

@Ariba Is it?

That is not in the manual.