I'm wondering if there is any reason that 'alphanum' and 'group_symbol' are kept separate in the identifier. I would think since, by the nature of stack languages, there are no infix symbols, there would be no need to keep these separate. Take, for example Scheme, which also has no infixes; in Scheme you can name things "my +function" or "|->i*i<-|", or a non-contrived example, "call-with- current-continuation". Is there any reason for not allowing this is Cat?
As an example, say somebody would someday want to write an html library, they could do something like:
As far as I can tell Bryan, that is an excellent idea! I was used to the C syntax of not requiring whitespace, i+=1 which to be honest, I never used, and abhor looking at. Besides as you point out, it isn't really neccessary in a stack-based language.
I will spend a couple of days mulling it over, but will probably add the feature in the release after next.
Thanks for the suggestion! Christopher Diggins
On 4/17/07, Bryan.Burg...@gmail.com <Bryan.Burg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm wondering if there is any reason that 'alphanum' and > 'group_symbol' are kept separate in the identifier. I would think > since, by the nature of stack languages, there are no infix symbols, > there would be no need to keep these separate. Take, for example > Scheme, which also has no infixes; in Scheme you can name things "my > +function" or "|->i*i<-|", or a non-contrived example, "call-with- > current-continuation". Is there any reason for not allowing this is > Cat?
> As an example, say somebody would someday want to write an html > library, they could do something like: