A Discussion of Tuple Syntax

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 8/20/13 11:08 PM, eles wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 at 00:38:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 8/20/13 5:28 PM, Tyler Jameson Little wrote:
>> Instead there have been 1001 proposals for new syntax for tuple
>> literals, one cuter than the next.
>
> I agree. However, that syntax issue is the bikeshed and it keeps
> everyone's mind busy. So, I propose to pick-up a syntax, even a
> provisional one, let's say that &(a,b) that I kinda like, then stick
> with it.
>
> This will free the way for more important and fundamental issues and, on
> the way, it will also allow to discover the eventual shortcomings of the
> syntax that was picked-up.

That's wrong, too. Choose a syntax from _within_ the language, not from 
_without_. That way we can discuss semantics without noise, and then 
figure whether a new syntax is warranted.

So instead of &(a, b) we should use symbol(a, b) or symbol!(a, b) 
replacing "symbol" appropriately. With &(a, b) I have no idea what 
you're talking about - save taking the address of b :o).


Andrei