Alternate declaration syntax

[Hans W. Uhlig]

Scott S. McCoy wrote:
> 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.
> 
I agree. The syntax I suppose was to make it look more distinct from 
other methods. I dont like tacking on const to the begining of 
everything because when developing const functions returning touples you 
end up with 4 or 5 consts and it gets really confusing. I agree the 
simple keywords would be best as this eliminates all of the ambiguity in 
the syntax and also makes it alot easier to read.