From: Oren Ben-K. <or...@ri...> - 2002-08-11 16:52:56
|
Clark C . Evans [mailto:cc...@cl...] wrote: > | Question: we *don't* require the '(' to be balanced, right? As in: > | > | foo) : Is OK. > | (#bar() : So this must be. > > Err, I don't think we should be condoning unballenced > parenthesis, curely or square brackets. Well, that rather ruins this notion... > Alternatively we could use the caret... > > ^yes !bool 1 Ugh! I *like* (true). ^true or ~true are horrid. > Perhaps ~ is the character we want, it has the nice feature in > that it fits in nicely with null. What may fit with null (if one looks at it from the right angle) is saying that ~<whatever> is a way to make <whatever> into a "note". Sort of "nullify" it if you get my drift. So: point: x: 5 y: 12 ~bloop: And keep all the other keys as they are (=, etc.). The only down-side is that '~' itself is *not* a "note". hash: ~: app sees this ~note: But not this ~~: Or this. Hmmm. Thoughts? Have fun, Oren Ben-Kiki |