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