Inverted syntax option

[Bob Foster]

Monstrosity, indeed. How do you feel about Remy Forax's proposal, e.g.:

  baz((int x, int y)(x + y))

(since I gather you like type inference) or:

  baz(int(int x, int y)(x + y))

Cheers!

Bob

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Nilsson <john at milsson.nu> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Bob Foster <bobfoster at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps you meant this to illustrate how awkward and regressive this
>> numbered-argument syntax is, and if so I applaud you for the examples.
>> If this is a serious proposal, I suggest swapping the % character for #
>> (the parser can figure it out by its prefix operator position) so everyone
>> will understand that the new model for the Java language is the MS-DOS
>> command line.
>>    baz(%1 + %2)
>
> ;-) I was actually thinking of $1 + $2 (Bash style) but $ is already a valid
> identifier as far as I know...
> But yes it was intended as a serious proposal. If the alternative is some
> monstrosity such as new lambda<int,int>(int a, int b) { return a + b: } to
> express a simple concept that shouldn't require more characters than one to
> be perfectly clear: +
> I'm quite found of the Scala approach to lambdas where syntax is mostly
> optional when the context can be used to infer the intended lambda. #1 + #2
> is kind of compromise in that regard as it has been my impression that the
> Java crowd here isn't to found of terseness.
> BR,
> John