On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 16:25:27 UTC, Diggory wrote:
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 14:26:11 UTC, watcher wrote:
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 14:06:15 UTC, Diggory wrote:
Could also do something in the style of token strings, ie.
t{ ... }
It's lighter than "tup" and there's a precedent for it
already in the language with q{ ... } which also means there
should be no issues parsing it.
These are the hacks that bring languages into a kind of
brainfuck syntax. Why not keep a language easy readable and
understandable. A precedence does not imply that it is a
desirable thing to have.
I'm sorry that you don't like it, but I don't see why it's any
more of a hack than any of the other methods presented thus far?
I've always found token strings to be exceedingly readable
myself, and when new syntax is needed it's usually best to base
it on some existing syntax so that there's some sort of
consistency.
I hope i did not sound mean. I just think that a language should
not be that terse. It must be human readable with little room to
make typing or other mistakes. I rather type more if necessary.
