I never wanted it to be a part of an identifier. I wanted it to be an overloadable operator. '-' already is an overloadable operator, so it can be put to many uses. '#' is, as i know, used in the shebang and the line specifier. I don't know if it will be unambiguous to use it as an operator.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:37 AM, kennytm <kenn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gor Gyolchanyan <gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The whole point was to put the question mark to a better use. >> I mean, it's used in the ternary operator exclusively. >> It's such a waste of a token. >> The question mark logically belongs to bools (which goes good with the >> ternary operator), but the bools are much more ofter worked with in >> the form of predicates, so I'd want to make that question mark more >> useful. > > That could be said to '-' which is only used for subtaction. What a waste > of token. > > I'd say as long as the symbol alone is a valid token, it should never be > part of an identifier, doing else just gonna confuse anybody coming from > C-like languages, i.e. C, C++, C#, D, Java, JavaScript, etc. > > -1. > > You've got a slightly better chance if you've suggested '#'. >