Closed towerofnix closed 8 years ago
ping @BookOwl, @kvackkvack
You guys should all have followed this repository! >:D I need your help!
Sorry, I was offline for the past few hours. I assume that you wouldn't use this feature that much, so unevaluated name
is fine. If you want something smaller, how about |name|
?
Implemented with unevaluated name
in https://github.com/liam4/tlnccuwagnf/commit/473ad48a74f57f3654b071ae53330909e74d1dcb. Still kind of open to suggestions but I think I'll stick with that.
I don't like using unevaluated like that since there aren't any other statements implemented. :package: I'd prefer |name|
like @BookOwl suggests.
Maybe :name
, or ..name
? idk
since there aren't any other statements implemented.
You mean we don't have any other English words implemented (like var
or change
or whatever)? If so +1 :P
how about noEval(...)
? :package:
how about noEval(...)? :package:
ew no how would that work? :P to make it actually unevaluated then, you'd have to make unEval() a special case which makes its arguments unevaluated in the first place, and it'd all be very confusing.
I still like |name| the best. :P maybe noeval name, but it shouldn't be a function.
How about '(lt(x, 8))
?
How about '(lt(x, 8))?
Hold on, how does that work?
Keep in mind we're working on the syntax for unevaluated function parameters, i.e. what goes in the prototype/definition of the function:
this_is_a_fn => fn(insert unevaluated syntax here) {
code code code
};
I like |name|
, then.
We're going with unevaluated arg-name
.
Why? To make better control structures:
How? I'm not sure. I can easily implement it but I'm not sure what the syntax should be -- all I can think of right now is this:
That's really big and clunky but clearer than something like this:
Any suggestions?