[9front] Re: commit 2f8a59f4b5bfe028c022855acc19666d69eed909

[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