Archetype language

[bearophile]

KennyTM~:

> And this change makes integers look like they are iterable,

That's not so good, I agree :-)


> This makes 'if' looks like a template :p.

I agree, that may cause troubles in D. Not good.


> Yeah this was tried once and becomes a mess in detail :)

I remember part of the discussion, and I think it's a not so messy situation. I think it's doable.


> So how Archetype deals with 0 and 1-tuple?

I don't know, I presume as Python. In that discussion I said to Walter than the 1-tuple cause problems in Python. In the meantime I have changed my mind a bit: 1-tuple syntax in Python is not great, but it's much better than not having tuple syntax :-)


> 'yield' is gogreatod.

I have no idea what 'gogreatod' means, sorry :-)


> This could be a library type (as proposed before?)

Right.


> the problem is to let the compiler knows the value-range in the propagation.

Right...


> Yes. Maybe the Python/Javascript 1.7-like syntax
>      a = (f(x,y,z) foreach(x,y; it) if(cond(x,y)) foreach(z; it2) ...)

Yes please.
Plus the eager version too that produces an array:
[f(x,y,z) foreach(x,y; it) if(cond(x,y)) foreach(z; it2) ...]


> Since this is an O(N) operation I don't see any reason an operator-based
> syntax will be allowed, given 'in' is rejected for this reason.

I don't agree. "in" was refused for the linear search because elsewhere the D "in" is known to be O(1). But D operators are generally allowed to perform O(n) operations too, think about the "a[]-10" vector operation.


> Hundreds could be >> 100 :)

Noam Chomsky is a genius and you must listen to him even when he's drunk :-)

Bye,
bearophile