Would a double paren work here?
begin (( ref c, in d )) { … }
Since it’s a paren, what could be passed into a task intent would have
to be limited. That may or may not be an issue. I’m not familiar enough
here to know. I agree that the comparison operators make me think C++
right away too. Like you, I’m not in love with either of these
unfortunately.
I almost counterproposed this, but got stuck on the question as to whether
this would be a new 'double paren' token in the lexer (which would be
problematic because it would mean that other instances of adjacent
parenthesis -- like in nested tuples -- would become syntax errors or
require special handling in the parser) or whether it would just be two
consecutive paren tokens (which would suggest that there could be
whitespace between the parens, for better or worse).
-Brad
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
_______________________________________________
Chapel-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-developers
