Carl Mäsak wrote:
> Jonathan Lang (>):
>> That saves a singlr character over Bag( ... ) and Set( ... ),
>> respectively (or three characters, if you find decent unicode bracket
>> choices).  It still wouldn't be a big enough deal to me to bother with
>> it.
> +1. Let's leave it at that.

That said, I do think that Bag( ... ) should be able to take pairs, so
that one can easily create a Bag that holds, say, twenty of a given
item, without having to spell out the item twenty times.  Beyond that,
the only other syntax being proposed is a set of braces to be used to
create Bags and Sets, as part of the initiative to make them nearly as
easy to use as lists.  In essence, you'd be introducing two operators:
circumfix:<|[ ]|> and circumfix:<|{ }|>, as aliases for the respective
Set and Bag constructors.  As I said, it's not a big deal - either

Really, my main issue remains the choice of sigil for a variable
that's supposed to hold baggy containers.

Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang

Reply via email to