[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Colon syntax minor inelegance
- From: steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:37:55 +0200
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Peter Cawley <email@example.com> wrote:
> argument list, but this is ugly from a language design point of view,
> as then "foo:bar(...)" becomes a special-case of redefining the
> semantics of something which is already valid syntax.
So the question would be: what is more ugly, having to live with
different implementations of foo:bar and foo:bar(...), or not having
any meaning for foo:bar ?
Having the auto-closure available would be useful when specifying
callbacks to object methods.