From: Brian Candler <b.candler@...>
Date: 2009-12-09T07:29:58+09:00
Subject: Re: how about ruby's threads?

Tony Arcieri wrote:
> So, psst, I'm the author of Reia, so you can take my responses as
> authoritative :)

D'oh! I can't believe I missed that. My sincere apologies.

> This is true, however those call semantics are what enable blocks.  I 
> guess
> you don't plan on having blocks.

I was going to do them in a rather trivial way, just by passing the 
block as the first argument:

  f(a,b) { |c| d(c) }   -->   f(fun(c) -> d(c) end, a, b)

That's on the observation that lists:map, lists:foldl and lists:filter 
all seem to take a function as the first argument.

> I'm not sure how wild people are going to be about a
> language with a Ruby-like grammar and single assignment.

You're probably right. It's just a toy.

The first things I plan to do are:

- atoms in ruby syntax:   :foo
- hence :foo() is a regular function call
- ditto a = :foo; a()
- barewords which are not seen in LHS of match expressions are also 
implicitly function calls:
   foo        --->   foo()
   foo "bar"  --->   foo("bar")
- io.write  -->  io:write()
- def...rescue...ensure...end for function definitions (wrapping in a 
'try' automatically if necessary)
- || -> orelse, && -> andalso

then see what it looks like.

I'd also like to use the "..." syntax for binaries rather than lists, 
but that complicates matters when you have to write
  a = "hello"
  b = " world"
  c = <<a/binary, b/binary>>

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.