On 3 June 2015 at 05:56, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that would confuse me, and maybe break syntax highlighting. > It *looks* like a message send to nothing.
That might be a good thing as there is no object needed to resolve the method lookup. You already have the "method" to evaluate, which is obviously the block. It's a bit heretic, but the more I think, the more I like it. > How about something that gives more feeling of inserting... > add <-- 3 , 4. > add <<< 3 , 4. > add <<: 3 <<: 4. > add @:3 @:4. > > > cheers -ben > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Francisco Garau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'd like to make some syntax changes that would make block evaluation > more > > legible. > > > > Currently we define and evaluate blocks like this: > > > > inc := [ : x | x + 1 ]. > > (inc value: 3) = 4. > > addTo := [ : x : y | x + y ]. > > (addTo value: 3 value: 4) = 7. > > > > > > But I would like them to be defined like this: > > > > [ inc: x | x + 1 ]. > > (inc: 3) = 4 > > > > [add: x to: y | x + y ]. > > (add: 3 to: 4) = 7. > > > > > > What do you think? Is it feasible? > > > > I presume it's Opal where I should start looking at implementing this > > changes, but any hints/suggestions are welcomed. > > > > Cheers, > > Francisco > >
