Something simpler?

[Joshua Bloch]

Peter,


On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Peter Levart <peter.levart at marand.si>wrote:

> On 03/17/10, Joshua Bloch wrote:
> > I don't want to be the party pooper here, but this doesn't look at all
> like
> > Java. I'm afraid it violates the cardinal rule of language
> > extension:  primum nil nocere.
> >
> >    Josh
> >
>
> Which part of the proposed syntax do you feel does most harm?
>

Again, not to be a party pooper, but all of it.  This does not look like
Java:

[:int] two = (:2);
assert two[] == 2;


Java programmers wouldn't understand it, and they wouldn't be comfortable
with it once it was explained to them. I'm sorry to be so negative, but I
really don't think this is a good direction.

         Josh