From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f78242cdae3fa424364038ed0d7c7dd0@coraid.com>
References: <CAG3N4d81u5p-WVz5aXnjGE8ON5BMd-AEr0xRMjP+Ug4G9Db=UA@mail.gmail.c>
	<f78242cdae3fa424364038ed0d7c7dd0@coraid.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:56:10 +0300
Message-ID: <CAG3N4d_5f97O85mwGnrawwiGQAPN+K6CTQ0vbpk2EexkpbH0qg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yaroslav <yarikos@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] rc: fn name @{block}
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 729dd792-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> you've misunderstood the current grammar. =C2=A0you have defined 2 functi=
ons
> name and '@' as {block}. =C2=A0the binding, illustrated with parens is
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0fn (name @) {block}
> the production in the grammer is
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0FN words brace
> but since once production for words is words -> keyword, a keyword
> is a valid function name.

Then, how would you explain this:

term% fn x @{x=3Dy}
term% whatis x
fn x {x=3Dy}
term% fn 'x @'{x=3Dy}
term% whatis 'x @'
fn 'x @' {x=3Dy}