Why not allow empty code blocks?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2016-08-02, BartC <bc at freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 18:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 02:56 am, BartC wrote:
>>
>>> (And I expect that next they will eliminate languages altogether. All
>>> you need is some way of specifying a sequence of calls to library
>>> functions and sprinkling around some control statements;
>>
>> That would be called "a language".
>
> No, it wouldn't be given its own identity.

Sure it would.  How else could you talk about it or differentiate it
from something else?

> And it probably couldn't be used without that specific tool.

You mean like a compiler or interpreter?

> It would be more like a file format,

So you'd have to define a combination of syntax and semantics where
you specify what elements are allowed in what order/context and what
they mean in various combinations?

It turns out there's a English word for that.

It's called a "language".

> if the details are even exposed when the format is proprietary.
>
> A traditional language exists as text and can be stored as plain
> text.

Many languages are plain text.  Some aren't.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! If elected, Zippy
                                  at               pledges to each and every
                              gmail.com            American a 55-year-old
                                                   houseboy ...