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

[Ivan Čukić]

> someFunction(a, b, c) when (a > 0)

Something like that could make sense. As I said in the previous mail, I'm 
trying to come up with a sintax that can be terse and expressive.

> > less bugs can get into the code
> 
> true, and i keep going back and forth on this one in my head. i want to keep
> the syntax "terse" and consistent and requiring return types to be defined
> or making them optional works against one or the other.
> 
> there are many times when having multiple return types is very useful, of
> course. if nothing else, it allows error objects to be treated as a normal
> return value rather than an exceptional state like an exception.

You are right, though I'd rather have explicitly stated return types and 
errors - like Either(Real, ParsingError)

> 'type type' (e.g. `a) but that is one more concept for the developer to
> learn and keep straight.

Yes... type classes would be an overkill for the beginning :)

> 	func() { a = 2; }

I'd propose then a keyword equivalent to 'auto' in C++, or 'let', or 'val' or 
whatever for definitions. (again, it would make parsing *much* easier - no 
ambiguities)

The problem would be is it
(val x, y) = somePair // matches on y, extracts x
val (x, y) = somePair // extracts both x and y
(val x, val y) = somePair // extracts both x and y
(x, y) = somePair // matches both


Cheerio,
Ivan


KDE, ivan.cukic at kde.org, http://ivan.fomentgroup.org/ 
gpg key id: 850B6F76, keyserver.pgp.com