spir wrote:
> Actually, I have never been pleased that func defs (1) look like func
> calls (2) have an exceptional syntax compared to other definitions. I'd
> like instead eg:
>
> square = function (int n) int {
> return n * n;
> }
>
That is still different from other definitions where the type comes
first. But the following would work too:
function (int n) int square = {
return n*n;
}
And both would be easier to parse to boot:) There are actually
languages out there with this kind of syntax.
Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
