From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 17961 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2021 15:05:47 -0000
Received: from 1ess.inri.net (216.126.196.35)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 9 Jul 2021 15:05:47 -0000
Received: from mimir.eigenstate.org ([206.124.132.107]) by 1ess; Fri Jul  9 11:01:34 -0400 2021
Received: from abbatoir.myfiosgateway.com (pool-74-108-56-225.nycmny.fios.verizon.net [74.108.56.225])
	by mimir.eigenstate.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 9ec0e2c5 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Fri, 9 Jul 2021 08:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <270BEC567655102DE0C764820FA16F74@eigenstate.org>
To: 9front@9front.org
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2021 11:01:19 -0400
From: ori@eigenstate.org
In-Reply-To: <F2AA76DA-AB14-468F-82D2-AD613FCCD2FF@stanleylieber.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: object-oriented element dependency event method 
Subject: Re: [9front] Re: commit 2f8a59f4b5bfe028c022855acc19666d69eed909
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoth Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com>:
> On July 9, 2021 3:48:39 AM EDT, Anthony Martin <ality@pbrane.org> wrote:
> >> rc: add subshell-function syntax
> >>
> >> fn foo @{bar} is now equivalent to
> >> fn foo {@{bar}}. As a side effect,
> >> this disallows creating functions
> >> named after keywords without first
> >> quoting them.
> >
> >Respectfully, this is just wrong. @ is a
> >unary operator. Repurposing it to define
> >a new special kind of function is a bit
> >much.
> >
> >What does this buy you over being explicit
> >at the call site?
> >
> >	fn foo { bar }
> >
> >	@foo
> >
> >One color of function is enough. What's
> >next?
> >
> >	fn foo !{ bar }
> >
> >to mean that foo always negates the exit
> >status of its body?
> >
> >The new quoting requirement for functions
> >named after keywords seems fine, on the
> >other hand. But is it worth the backwards
> >incompatibility?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >  Anthony
> >
> 
> if we're introducing breaking changes to important programs like the shell, can we please at least post a warning on the mailing list?

(caveat -- it's compatible unless you
happen to be using functions named '@',
'`', etc -- which, again, you
can't use without quoting.)

I don't think most people even realize
that it's possible to name an rc function:

	'@{this is a valid} function name!'

Either way, noted -- I'll post next time.