Re: [9front] Re: commit 2f8a59f4b5bfe028c022855acc19666d69eed909

[hiro <23hiro@gmail.com>]

i finally found a workable example, but i had to troll the irc logs to find it

23:36:05 ori → ok, rc updated - now if you need early exits in
functions, 'fn foo @{...; exit; ...}


On 7/9/21, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> the examples are all weird. i still do not understand what this allows
> you to do.
>
> On 7/9/21, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>> On July 9, 2021 11:01:19 AM EDT, ori@eigenstate.org wrote:
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> thanks. changes to rc are tricky since of all things we expect it to
>> behave
>> consistently from day to day. I do think I misunderstood the change
>> itself.
>> I've been running sysupdate from cron and piping the output to an e-mail
>> to
>> myself -- the commit messages as printed by sysupdate are truncated.
>>
>> sl
>>
>