A different tuple syntax

[Diggory]

On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 14:26:11 UTC, watcher wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 14:06:15 UTC, Diggory wrote:
>> Could also do something in the style of token strings, ie.
>>
>> t{ ... }
>>
>> It's lighter than "tup" and there's a precedent for it already 
>> in the language with q{ ... } which also means there should be 
>> no issues parsing it.
>
> These are the hacks that bring languages into a kind of 
> brainfuck syntax. Why not keep a language easy readable and 
> understandable. A precedence does not imply that it is a 
> desirable thing to have.

I'm sorry that you don't like it, but I don't see why it's any 
more of a hack than any of the other methods presented thus far?

I've always found token strings to be exceedingly readable 
myself, and when new syntax is needed it's usually best to base 
it on some existing syntax so that there's some sort of 
consistency.