Alternate declaration syntax

[Hans W. Uhlig]

Robert Fraser wrote:
> Hans W. Uhlig 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
>>
>> `$=`;$_=\%!;($_)=/(.)/;$==++$|;($.,$/,$,,$\,$",$;,$^,$#,$~,$*,$:,@%)=(
>> $!=~/(.)(.).(.)(.)(.)(.)..(.)(.)(.)..(.)......(.)/,$"),$=++;$.++;$.++;
>> $_++;$_++;($_,$\,$,)=($~.$"."$;$/$%[$?]$_$\$,$:$%[$?]",$"&$~,$#,);$,++
>> ;$,++;$^|=$";`$_$\$,$/$:$;$~$*$%[$?]$.$~$*${#}$%[$?]$;$\$"$^$~$*.>&$=`
> 
> As for the post itself, I agree the return type should be at the end, 
> but good luck convincing Walter of such. Also, D has no exception 
> specifications ("throws" clauses) - nor do many other languages besides 
> Java (it's considered something of a failed experiment...).
> 
> My suggestion for the syntax is to indeed use the colon but not a 
> "returns" keyword since that's a lot of typing. If I were designing a 
> language, it would look like:
> 
> const foo(int x, int y, int z) : int
> {
> }
> 
> Grammatically:
> 
> <modifiers> <identifier> "(" <parameters> ")" ":" <return type> "{" 
> <statements> "}"
Ok, I have to ask the stupid question, what are peoples problem with 
typing. Programmers should not be so lazy as to be unable to type 7 
characters. the throws was also an example of how this could be used to 
apply a clean syntax to other properties that need to be defined, 
extends for inheritance, etc. In a system like this, major additions to 
the function declaration can be made rather easily, and it produces 
easier to read code. Nice thing about it is, D could support both for a 
while and I dont think it would be too hard to implement parser wise.