A different tuple syntax

[watcher]

On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 16:25:27 UTC, Diggory wrote:
> 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.

I hope i did not sound mean. I just think that a language should 
not be that terse. It must be human readable with little room to 
make typing or other mistakes. I rather type more if necessary.