What is the stance on partial initializers when declaring

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-07-22 15:37, kenji hara wrote:
> 2011/7/22 Jacob Carlborg<doob at me.com>:
>> Cool. But it's quite inconsistent that assignment requires "seq" and
>> declaration doesn't.
>
> Yes it is inconsistent, but I think it is not big problem.
> Because assignment for reusing variables is not good way.
> It is not 'functional', need 'side-effect', so
>
>> (x, y) = seq!(1, 2);
>>
>> Would it be possible to allow the above syntax?
>
> it seems to me that supporting above syntax is not worth changing grammar cost.
>
> Kenji Hara

Ok, I see.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg