Re: Lightweight function syntax (again)

[Axel Kittenberger <axkibe@...>]

>
>   But ... OUCH! ... surely an empty parameter list should be
>   denoted by  <>  rather than just  <  which, IMO, looks grotesque!

Thats why IMHO there is no reason that an empty parameter list needs a >.

(<=nil)  -- i'd really like that double lined pointer pointing outward.
(< if upvalue then print "yes" end)   -- think of < it again

2010/11/23 Pierre-Yves Gérardy <pygy79@gmail.com>:
> I don't mind the < too much, but you'd have to make "(<" a token,
> otherwise, the grammar would be ambiguous. This means you couldn't put
> spaces between the opening parenthese and the less than sign.

I dont think it would be ambigious, as currently a less sign can never
be followed by an open parenthesis. It would always need a value first
to be less than something else.

Thats the reason why I silently discarded the idea of using <( x+y )>
since this could mean for the parser smaller than x + y as well, at
least up to an undefined amount of look ahead later.

>
> -- Pierre-Yves
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 18:26, Joseph Manning <manning@cs.ucc.ie> wrote:
>> On 2010-Nov-23 (Tue) at 18:11 (+0100), Axel Kittenberger wrote:
>>
>>>> Just playing around, how do you like these, all of the same grammar,
>>>> different cases:
>>
>> Dear Axel,
>>
>>   Not bad.  Although I'd prefer  =>  over  =  for denoting "return".
>>
>>   But ... OUCH! ... surely an empty parameter list should be
>>   denoted by  <>  rather than just  <  which, IMO, looks grotesque!
>>
>>   Thus, using your first and fifth examples,
>>
>>      ( <> = nil )
>>
>>   and
>>
>>      ( <> if upvalue then print "yes" end )
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joseph Manning / Computer Science / UCC Cork Ireland / manning@cs.ucc.ie
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>