Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?

[Oliver Kroth <oliver.kroth@...>]

Hi,

I know that the approach is off-center; intentionally.
I wrote that there is a trick to transport an intent together with the 
value returned by the function.

So it's not the *value* that is constant or to be closed; it's the 
function's result, consisting of the value and the intent to modify the 
variable where it shall be stored.

--
Oliver



Am 04.06.19 um 17:47 schrieb Andrew Gierth:
> > > > > > "Oliver" == Oliver Kroth <oliver.kroth@nec-i.de> writes:
>   Oliver> Hi,
>
>   Oliver> what about another approach to the 'no special character, but
>   Oliver> no new keyword' problem? We could use a function call:
>
> I think of all the proposed solutions this one is the one that most
> misses the point. The constness or to-closeness is a property of the
> VARIABLE, not of the value stored in it, and the syntax needs to reflect
> that.