Hi Guy,
On 12/03/2024 17:54, Guy Steele wrote:
(1) avoids this problem by making the syntaxes different. (2b) avoids
the problem by making the semantics match. But (2a) totally has this
problem.
I agree that 2a leaves us in a place that is suboptimal.
I think 2b is also undesirable (as I explained elsewhere), as it would
compromise the design goals of the feature too much IMHO.
So, the choice is (also IMHO) between an ad-hoc conversion (with the
problems that I described in my previous email) and a different literal
syntax (your (1)).
Maurizio
