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=1.3 required=5.0 tests=RDNS_NONE autolearn=no
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 14655 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2021 17:33:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO 4ess.inri.net) (216.126.196.42)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 27 Aug 2021 17:33:35 -0000
Received: from mimir.eigenstate.org ([206.124.132.107]) by 4ess; Fri Aug 27 11:08:01 -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 bb1f2e15 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Fri, 27 Aug 2021 08:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <C07BF59C797BF35114F03583FCC85B76@eigenstate.org>
To: 9front@9front.org
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 11:07:31 -0400
From: ori@eigenstate.org
In-Reply-To: <YOf/V9QOmOno33rk@alice>
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: session TOR over HTTP module singleton 
Subject: Re: [9front] Re: commit 2f8a59f4b5bfe028c022855acc19666d69eed909
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoth Anthony Martin <ality@pbrane.org>:
> > 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
> 

After a bunch of time/thought, trying it
out, and realizing I'm not really getting
much mileage out if it:

I'm going to revert this some time next week.