Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?

[Rodrigo Azevedo <rodrigoams@...>]

Em seg, 3 de jun de 2019 às 08:05, Sergey Zakharchenko
<doublef.mobile@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> Hello,
>
> Ulrich Schmidt <u.sch.zw@gmx.de>:
> > Oliver Kroth <oliver.kroth@nec-i.de>:
> > >I would even go further and skip the local in that case (as Dibyendu
> > >Majumdar did):
> > >
> > >constant x = 5
> > >scoped f = ...
> >
> > I like this Idea, no matter what keywords we finally choose.
>
> The extensibility of the current 5.4 syntax will then be done with, and we'll be firmly on the road to Java with 50+ reserved words:)
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> DoubleF

Alternative, we can __band them:

local & constant = 5
local & catched = 10 -- alternative name, because all 'local' are
lexically 'scoped' and 'toclose' is ugly.

Moreover (just for fun):

We can always add more constructors with a 'syntactic sugar'-like
constructor, a new "mechanism"

sugar NAME local & constant  -- new keyword ''sugar" here to define
your own syntactic sugar keywords
NAME foo = bar

-- 
Rodrigo Azevedo Moreira da Silva