Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?

["szbnwer@..." <szbnwer@...>]

hi all! :)

Ryan Ford:
>  I'm sure this would break the current syntax though as you would be initializing the local "resource" and assigning a new value to the global "x"

if `resource` is a keyword, then it wont mess with anything, and no
new stuff will be usable in older versions, no matter what.
compatibility is not an issue as far as these wont actually replace
`local`. in that case, backward compatibility goes, otherwise thats
just a matter of not using these new stuffs. by replacing `local`,
that would mean 6.0 arrived.



btw this wasnt a vote for making it a keyword, only the `*toclose`
syntax creeped me to hell so far now. :D

otherwise i would think in something like `@{ ... }` or `&{ ... }` (or
whatever like), so we could hack around these with tables (but ive got
no much ideas about any usecases, take this only as a starting idea)
and the main meaning is that this binds to the "left hand side" (so
the var, but maybe(?) even `{@{...} 1, 2, @{...} 3, 4, @{...} x=1234}`
and `f(@{...} x)`).

looks ugly for me anyhow, no matter what... :D im in the group of
those, who think that 5.1 was ready for everything (maybe minor
polishing like allowing `'str':fun()`, `{}:fun()`, `#...`, `...[]`;
not trimming the paths in the backtraces; and internals could be
fine-tuned invisibly in case of anything to do there.)



somewhat off:
i only hope that backticks wont ever be used in lua, as plaintext
documentation (mostly comments :D ) wont have any nice delimiters for
code snippets, and they will become messy (like absence of any
notation), fatty (multi-char delimiters) and/or ugly...

bests! :)