Alternate declaration syntax

[Scott S. McCoy]

I see where you're going with this suggestion, but we don't need to
change that much to have multiple return values, either with the
existing syntax, or the syntax I previously suggested. in the last
thread:

public const const(int), const(float) foo (const int foo);

(syntax I suggested)
public const int:const, float:const foo (const int foo);

This is already quite possible, syntactically, with minimal
restructuring of method declarations.

Also, with syntactical additions such as keywords like "throws" or
"returns", the additional punctuation seems unnecessary.

But if you are going to affix a method declaration with multiple
possible types of statements (throws, returns, whatever else) keywords
seem to make more sense than punctuation.

Cheers,
	Scott S. McCoy

On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 11:41 -0700, Hans W. Uhlig wrote:
> Koroskin Denis wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:26:24 +0400, Hans W. Uhlig 
> > <huhlig at clickconsulting.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Ok, Posting to the main forum so it doesn't get lost in the const stuff.
> >>
> >> Perhaps a slight variation to the C declaration might be in order, 
> >> since I know that multiple return values are wanted, a simple and 
> >> readable syntax for inheritance is needed (using : as an inheritor 
> >> does not make code more readable) try this out and see if it makes it 
> >> clearer
> >>
> >> <modifiers,...> <identifier> <properties,...> {...}
> >>
> >> such that:
> >> const foo(const int, const double) §
> >>      throws barExtension §
> >>      returns const int, const float
> >> {
> >>      // ... code ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> same for classes:
> >>
> >> const class foo § extends bar {
> >>      const int x;
> >>      pure foo(const int, const double) § returns invariant string;
> >>      // ... more code ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> (Note: § is used as a divider because no one uses it for anything in 
> >> programming and I didn't want to start an argument over : or | or ; or 
> >> any other punctuation being used elsewhere and being bad, quite 
> >> possible punctuation wouldn't be neccessary)
> >>
> >> It looks like a hideous cross between java and visual basic but it is 
> >> clean, readable, simple to machine parse(I think) and descriptive. 
> >> using slightly longer keywords makes a language a little more verbose, 
> >> but it also makes it readable. if you want to use punctuation for 
> >> everything you get what happened to perl when someone got a little too 
> >> creative
> >>
> >> `$=`;$_=\%!;($_)=/(.)/;$==++$|;($.,$/,$,,$\,$",$;,$^,$#,$~,$*,$:,@%)=(
> >> $!=~/(.)(.).(.)(.)(.)(.)..(.)(.)(.)..(.)......(.)/,$"),$=++;$.++;$..++;
> >> $_++;$_++;($_,$\,$,)=($~.$"."$;$/$%[$?]$_$\$,$:$%[$?]",$"&$~,$#,);$,++
> >> ;$,++;$^|=$";`$_$\$,$/$:$;$~$*$%[$?]$.$~$*${#}$%[$?]$;$\$"$^$~$*.>&$=`
> > 
> > 
> > Yeah, except that I (and many others) don't have that sign on my 
> > keyboard <g>
> > Did you mean $, not §? IMO, colon serves the purpose better.
> > 
> > Other than this, I like Jave-style throwable list. I believe it makes 
> > DBC more powerful.
> > I would also like to see thread safety attribute as well, but it could 
> > be a pain for compiler to verify.
> 
> I used § as a placeholder, I was looking more for the syntax then the 
> punctuation I prefer using a : or none at all if possible. I just used § 
> to stem off a horrendous debate on the merits and flaws of the colon.