Re: [9front] Re: commit 2f8a59f4b5bfe028c022855acc19666d69eed909

[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?

(the mailing list itself relies on she'll scripts.)

sl