> On May 17, 2021, at 10:50 AM, Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xav...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 6:58 AM Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net > <mailto:m...@newclarity.net>> wrote: > > > > Well, I was thinking that by changing the proposed syntax we could achieve > > what is proposed and a little bit more. > > Also we wouldn't need to worry about the number of ? needed as arguments. > > Since all we need is to mark the return type as partial (closure) on the > > fly and grab hold of what is passed as arguments. > > > > There are some different syntaxes that come to my mind: > > We could still use ? but outside of the arguments list? > > ``` > > $partial = xyx?(..); > > $partial = ?xyx(..); > > ``` > > or maybe different symbols: > > ``` > > $partial = :xyz(..); > > ``` > > > > We might be able to even cast the return type: > > ``` > > $partial = (?) xyz(..); > > $partial = (partial) xyz(..); > > $partial = (fn) xyz(..); > > ``` > > Casting is another interesting approach that does feel more consistent with > the existing language. > > Since it *is* creating a closure, wouldn't this make the most sense? > > $partial = (closure) abc(); > > Ouch! definitely NOT! > > $partial = (closure) xyz(?,24);
Mind if I ask for you to elaborate on your aversion? Asking for general understanding, not to debate the point. -Mike
