Jump to content
Claris Engage 2025 - March 25-26 Austin Texas ×
The Claris Museum: The Vault of FileMaker Antiquities at Claris Engage 2025! ×

This topic is 6500 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.

Recommended Posts

Posted

I voted for poorly worded because as I said in the relevant thread, too many parens. confuse, but sometimes extra parentheses do provide clarity (to me!) even though they are not strictly necessary. Please Excuse Me, Don't Ask Somebody (who's not a mathemetician).

Posted

Hi

I voted "Confuse" but the question is even poorly worded...

It starts with the word "REDUNDANT" that implies the fact that those parentheses are of no utility.

Posted

To me, redundant doesn't mean of no utility, but exceeding what is necessary. In engineering redundancy can be of considerable value, while in rhetoric it is often considered in a negative light.

Perhaps we FMers straddle the world of authors and engineers.

I included the choice of "poorly worded" because it's hard coming up with a bomb-proof poll question. Putting 'generally' or 'sometimes' instead of the implied 'always' may have helped Fitch make another choice at the cost of someone else feeling the question was too ambiguous to have meaning.

Besides, the point wasn't to get a scientific result, but to move the discussion onto its own thread.

Posted

From Wiktionary:

-------------------

English

Etymology

Latin re ("back") + undare ("to flow")

Adjective

redundant

Superfluous; exceeding what is necessary.

Repetitive or needlessly wordy.

(mainly British) Dismissed from employment because no longer needed.

Involving redundancy in the provision of duplicate circuits or devices.

-----------------------------

... while in rhetoric it is often considered in a negative light.

Perfect !

So my point was:

It is correct to make a rhetoric question for a poll ?

Isn't it the real hijacking ?

Posted

Also from Information Theory: redundancy serves to reduce interpretation errors.

"One of the purposes of adding redundancy to a stream of information is to make it easier for humans (and computers, in some cases) to digest information. Although a sentence without vowels can be read, it is harder to read. " J. Bumgardner

So a few well-placed parentheses make things easier/quicker to read -- in theory and in practice.

Posted

"Although a sentence without vowels can be read, it is harder to read. "

This isn't a good example for me; from that sentence we can't say that is better to place a double vowel into a word to read better the "real" word itself.

For example JMO had given this calc to a question on AGE:

GetAsNumber(Year(Get(Curr entDate)) - Year(DOB) - Case(Get(CurrentDate) < Date(Month(DOB); Day(DOB); Year(Get(CurrentDate))); 1; 0))

This calc obviously works, but for me is easiest to understand this other:

Year ( Get ( CurrentDate ) ) - Year ( DOB ) - ( Get ( CurrentDate ) < Date ( Month ( DOB ) ; Day ( DOB ) ; Year ( Get ( CurrentDate ) ) ) )

Now I can understand that:

1) the GetAsNumber function forces to think that the result will be a number

2) the Case function forces to think that there are 2 possible results of the boolean evaluation

and JMO wished to point them out...

but aren't those function redundant ?

Posted

Ummm...

You guys do know that comments exist right?

For Example: Here we have nonsensical Shakesperean english:

"But, soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun."

Here we have commented nonsensical Shakesperean english:

//Juliet is Pretty

"But, soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun."

Posted

I have no argument with that quote. I was merely trying to better define what 'redundant' meant in the present context.

It seems that some people think redundant parentheses increase readability, while others find them more confusing then helpful. That may be a matter of legitimate personal preference.

However, when it comes to COMMUNICATION, I think it's best to stick to the accepted standards. In messages using written English, that would mean (among other things) using proper spelling, with exactly the amount of vowels as prescribed by the dictionary - no less, no more.

In messages using mathematical notation, "parentheses are used to signify a different precedence of operators" (Wikipedia). Therefore, redundant parentheses - that is parentheses that do NOT signify a change in the order of evaluation - are not conforming to the standard, and the recipient of the message has a legitimate cause to complain.

Posted

I would only offer that maybe the extra parentheses should be thought of as the equivalent of "commas and semicolons" and not really extra vowels.

Regardless, this line of reasoning is very much subjective. The best approach would seem to be: go with what works for you -- and, at the project level, document your usage conventions.

Posted

I would only offer that maybe the extra parentheses should be thought of as the equivalent of "commas and semicolons" and not really extra vowels.

This appears to be more correct, altought even those chars have to follow some rules.

Posted

In messages using mathematical notation, "parentheses are used to signify a different precedence of operators" (Wikipedia). Therefore, redundant parentheses - that is parentheses that do NOT signify a change in the order of evaluation - are not conforming to the standard, and the recipient of the message has a legitimate cause to complain.

A Wiki article referring math functions? I didn't realize Filemaker developing required adherence to mathematical standards, but then I'm such a math novice that I don't know the mathematical meaning of the ampersand or the pilcrow.

Later in that same article however, in reference to programming languages, Wiki also says that parentheses "are often used to define the syntactic structure of expressions, overriding operator precedence." Note the use of the qualifying word "often" and that it's referring to programming languages, reducing the relevance of these standards to FM.

I think standards are great and if you can post a link to the Filemaker Standards to which the developer community has agreed, I'd be much obliged. Especially the part about the use of brackets in calculations. Otherwise I can't be sure which standards you're referring to.

Posted

"are often used to define the syntactic structure of expressions, overriding operator precedence."

Now I enjoyed this. You quote to attempt to prove your point and you instead validate ours. There was no need to override precedence ... that's the point.

Posted

Even in Filemaker, parentheses are ALSO used to contain the arguments of a function. But we are not discussing the use of parentheses in general. It is very easy to ridicule a statement by taking it out of context. I am not going there.

Posted

Would everyone please just calm down.

This has just come down to personal preference vs. what is a general mathematical standard...

I'll say that 16 * (x / y) * 3 is clearer than writing 16 * x / y * 3 and that the implications of adding the brackets in this case are minor.

You might also want to note that Wikipidea is written by people -- therefore it is technically just an opinion.

The following are general extracts from wiki relating to the above -- you'll notice they all slightly contradict each other... i.e. one says often, the other forgets to say often, does that mean that the one that forgets to say often means always? Stop reading so much into what people say!

[quote name=wiki -> Types of brackets]

In mathematics, parentheses are used to signify a different precedence of operators. For example, 2 + 3 × 4 would be 14, since the multiplication is done before the addition. On the other hand, (2 + 3) × 4 is 20, because the parentheses override normal precedence, causing the addition to be done first.

Posted

Wikipidea is written by people -- therefore it is technically just an opinion.

Isn't everything? (written by people, I mean) How far would you be willing to go with that argument?

Posted

...it's referring to programming languages, reducing the relevance of these standards to FM.

So you don't classify If, Then, Let statements, Loops as part of a programming language?

[quote name=Wiki -> What is a programming lanugage]A programming language is an artificial language that can be used to control the behavior of a machine, particularly a computer. Programming languages, like human languages, are defined through the use of syntactic and semantic rules, to determine structure and meaning respectively.

Posted

Isn't everything? (written by people, I mean) How far would you be willing to go with that argument?

Not very.

Posted

"are often used to define the syntactic structure of expressions, overriding operator precedence."

Now I enjoyed this. You quote to attempt to prove your point and you instead validate ours. There was no need to override precedence ... that's the point.

If your point is that there was no need to override precedence, I completely, 100%, agree with you. The parens are unneeded, superfluous, and redundant.

My point however is that redundancy does not require elimination and may be of utility.

I'm happy just explaining my point. If your point is proven, then we can shake hands and walk away.

Posted

Easily done for me, David. I, as I'm sure we all, have better things to do like playing with FileMaker! Now THAT is worth getting excited about. Information is power; it should always be embraced.

Use parentheses, don't use parentheses; the choice belongs to each of us. We should all strive to write better code whenever possible and I doubt ANYONE can argue that. And I hope we can all feel free to suggest alternate methods because, as Comment points out, that is the purpose of FM Forums - to share knowledge and enhance us all.

I remain firm on my stand that they shouldn't be used unless in a complex calculation where it truly adds clarity. And I've no doubt you'll remain firm in your belief because with us both - a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Posted

Information is power; it should always be embraced

Rubish! How many stockbrokers actually knows what they're doing - instincts are just as powerfull. Your parole would imply that persons who suffer from auspergers syndrome never ever would have a chance to grap the "thone" ...your parole is highly circumstancial, all it takes is neither data, information nor knowledge, but instead say the inability to read peoples facial expressions or other "excellent" machiavellian virtues.

What your parole forgets or ignores is the difference between being sublime at something and sovereignty!

Oftentimes is there more power in, per instinct to deprive a community from information and substitute it with myths, prejudice and superstition - and even better if you manage to institutionalize these mesures, Europe have had it's fair share of ironclad bishops ...similar have I read an interview with a former CIA boss, who said that if the villains weren't working for them would they be robbing banks!

Are such things embracable???

--sd

Posted

Even if I accepted your premise - namely that instinct is NOT a form of knowledge - I would still say it's better to embrace knowledge than ignorance. I believe that was LaRetta's point, too.

Posted

Laretta, talks about information ...not knowledge, and I do by and large subscripe to her parole as an ideal. I do also agree that it's more noble to embrace knowledge than ignorance. But power comes in many flavours similar comes instincts some are pretty usefull for the entire community while others sometimes leads to organized crime or tyrany.

Take a poker player, they claim that politicians are some of easiest to "read", but it's also a disputable use of the math disipline statistics, for what if the players "believe" that they'll succeed in the end provided enough funding, and starts playing for other peoples money - without letting the lender know it!

--sd

Posted (edited)

Hey, Soren, you are cute as always. :wink2:

Michael *gets* me. But let me drop into simpleton for you -

Power has gotten a bad rap. It is neither good or bad. The more information, knowledge, friends, cookies, bucks, baseball cards and laughs ... the wiser we become if we keep an open mind, a willing spirit and have the guts to act or simply BE in positive ways.

Now I know you'll even find something in that because you're just in a playful mood and you wish to philosophize and haven't had the chance recently. Poor baby. So here's a better one for you which should keep you going two-three days at least ... happiness is a warm gun . Now you won't be bored, right? You're welcome. :smile2:

UPDATE: BTW, "Happiness is a warm gun" is not something I made up. I just wanted to be clear for anyone who might not know the Beatles or where that phrase came fun. I used it here PARTICULARLY because it was well-known saying so it would be funny. I don't like guns whether warm or not!

Edited by Guest
Posted

happiness is a warm gun. Now you won't be bored, right?

No it's irritating to be understood wrongly - your "assingment" have unfortunately following snag to it:

Knecht gradually comes to doubt whether the intellectually gifted have a right to withdraw from life's big problems. He eventually concludes that they do not, and that conclusion precipitates a sort of midlife crisis. Accordingly, he does the unthinkable: he resigns as Magister Ludi and asks to leave the order, ostensibly to become of value and service, in some way, to the larger culture

Snipped from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game

I'm not seeking ivory tower'ish persuits - at all, my mission is to nurse socratic gadflying attitudes!!!!!!!

--sd

Posted

:idunno: My intent wasn't to irritate. But it seems I do that whether I try or not. I don't really have time to deeply interpret you, Soren, and you DO take interpretation and study. I'm in the middle of a major move cross country and nothing can phase me right now. But I will save this post and pull it into my information to enhance my knowledge for future use to increase my power. :wink2:

Posted

DIK_2DDiagram.jpg

Even if I accepted your premise - namely that instinct is NOT a form of knowledge - I would still say it's better to embrace knowledge than ignorance. I believe that was LaRetta's point, too

Havn't you noticed that you're defending the wrong thing, could we agree that information and knowledge are two different things which only political aspirations seek to blur under a hidden agenda or such.

Information is organized data, which sometimes conveys to meaning and knowledge, and that if it gives meaning to some doesn't it nessersarily do the same for others because information can even contain large dozes of counterfeit.

This means that making it synonymious with power is far fetched, and very close to kindergarden or hollywood'ish behaviour "...the one who makes most noise" is the most powerfull. Is it really the one who thinks up most empty cliches that rules? Does power never come silently?

Is it an expression of power when you use excessive and redundant use of parantesis??

Wailing is sometimes an expression of felt inadequacy and dispair ...but still is it information, because it's an organized aiming at an audience.

This ends with similar considerations, wheather knowledge really is power as gestalt or just wishfull thinking? Warmongers kind of forgets to poke into Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, when they have an axe to grind ...and it isn't because the information and the knowledge isn't availiable - but because power corrupts, and over time leads to hubris!

I have my doubts that the creation of information, really is the highest goal ...at least as database developers might distinction between what the user see's as nice to know and the need to know, do we not have another agenda than spammers??

(the graph above is found in an interesting blog: http://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2006/03/data_informatio.html )

--sd

Posted

I corrected the above. Someone might think *I* said "Happiness is a warm gun" but it's a famous song by the Beatles. I wanted to post again about it because many people (that have already read this thread) won't be re-reading the above portions and might miss my correction. :(

Posted

Goethe, Jane Austen or Beatles "Love love me do" says surprisingly little to a Han Chinese, I happen to know ...they're more Abba'ish "Money, Money, Money" according to him. :(

No LaRetta, I refuse to take your bate!

--sd

Posted

Soren.

I appreciate you going through all of this to explain your points. But I am a much simpler person than that; sorry. Things are NOT black and white; information is neither good or bad (aren't good BOOKS information as well?); knowledge can be bad as well (what about the knowledge to build a bomb?); and power can also move objects and light our worlds (and there is a thing called spiritual power). The power to believe; the power to know; the power to make our own choices. I didn't know that such a simple (usually acceptable statement meaning we should embrase UNDERSTANDING rather than IGNORANCE will give us the power to make better choices), would bring such an upheaval.

I take back my phrase, "Information is Power." Now I believe that "Ignorance is bliss"

Posted

That post had NOTHING to do with you, Soren. I was not baiting. It was brought to my attention that the phrase "Happiness is a warm gun" was not mine. No, of course it isn't. But I thought I should clarify the point. I WAS NOT BAITING YOU! Your post wasn't even there when I posted!

Soren. Stop. Please. I respect you a great deal but no matter what I try to say, you'll find something in it.

This topic is 6500 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.