>From the outside looking in... I do not see anything preventing Greg from producing many macros or an entire syntax sub-system to emulate and empower him with any sugary languages that he might prefer or desire. It is just going to be quite a bit of work for him, but he could do it himself, if we wanted to turn Rust's syntax into something closer to Type Clojure or create a DSL.
Is that not true ? On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Corey Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Greg <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think Rust can succeed as a language if it massively differs, > > visually, from the language it intends to offset (C++). > > > > Yes, I agree, and that's why I wrote: > > > > "By this point, I'm aware that this is unlikely to happen." > > > > I think it's still possible to simplify Rust's existing syntax while > > maintaining the features it offers. > > > > My point is that the familiar syntax *is* a feature. What > simplifications do you propose? I think everyone is mostly happy with > the syntax at this point, so your proposed changes and justification > are going to be very pursuasive, and followed by a PR, for there to be > a chance of them being accepted. > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > -- -Thad +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
