Why Ruby?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:iejejo$pfr$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Any problem with the other Scala/C#-style one?:
>>
>> (x, y) =>  x * y
>>
>> // Lowered to:
>>
>> (x, y) { return x * y; }
>>
>> (Maybe that was rejected before due the the weird float operators that 
>> are now being ditched?)
>
> The problem with the (x,y) parameter lists, where x and y are the 
> parameters, is that it is ambiguous with the existing syntax of (x,y) 
> where x and y are types and the parameters are omitted.
>
> For example:
>
> void foo(int);

But we already have:

    (x, y) { return x * y; }

So either there aren't any problems with it after all, or D's existing 
delegate syntax is already broken.

To be clear, with what I'm trying to suggest, the *only* thing that would be 
different from the current delegate literal syntax is that part *after* the 
parameter list. Ie:

    PARAM_LIST_HERE { return x * y; }
    // -->
    PARAM_LIST_HERE => x * y

Or if there's a problem with =>, then ->, or -->, or ::>, or :>, or 
whatever. I'm not suggesting the param list be different in any way fromhow 
t is now. (Although proposals from other people might differ.)