funq: syntax that doesn't scare off C++ developers

[Marco Martin]

On Friday 25 July 2014, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> The other primary goal with the syntax is to keep it simple through
> clarity, consistency and trying to always provide "just one way to do
> things".
> 
> So here is the basic anatomy of a funq function:
> 
> tags functionName(parameter list) : preconditions
> {
> 	code block
> }

thinking about it, couldn't this syntax cause a bit of confusion and one may 
ask: why i can't put my piece of imparative code as "code block" ?
is probably not evitable anyways and one would have to just get over it, just 
throwing a quick gut feeling ;)

> Variables are single-assignment (you can't assign a different value to a
> variable once it is set) and typing is inferred (but not dynamic, due in
> part to single-assignment). Due to single-assignment, there is no need for
> a comparison operator (==). The assignment operator does both assignment
> and checking. So:
> 
> 	x = 1; // x is now 1.. obvious :)
> 	x = 2; // false!
> 	1 = x; // true!
> 	x = "An awesome string"; // false!
> 	y = x; // true! y now also equals 1
> 	z = 3;
> 	y = z; // false!
> 	y = x; // true!

again, wouldn't be something like
x = 1;
y = 3;

be interpreted as imperative?


second question on this

x = 1;
x = 1;

so the second line is actually a comparison and returns true.

do the first, that is an assignment "return" something?

like, would

fun()
{
   x = 1;
}

have any meaning whatsoever?

-- 
Marco Martin