Why Ruby?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-12-19 01:01, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "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.)

^^ Exactly. I would also like to have type inference for the parameter 
list, do we have that already in D2?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg