syntactic sweeteners, part ][
(A small update to yesterdays thoughts on syntactic sugar)
First here's a chunk of Linq, that i think might be fairly valid (though i haven't (a) compiled it or (b) ever actually compiled any linq code... so whadda i know??)
Now here's my idea for how the syntax could get even simpler, by using more "inferences"....
Okay -- so this is a bit like yesterday's "
in (people visit Person p)" example -- except here we simply say "
forevery (people)" and then access the keyword "value" to refer to the member within the collection.
Also in the linq query instead of "
from p in People" we just say ""
from People" and then rather than use the variable '
p' we use the keyword '
value', (much like in a property setter).
I'm really gonna stop thinkin about silly syntax soon. This is perhaps not as bad as the time a few months ago when i started trying to invent ancestors for xml.Next → ← Previous
I'm currently writing a book about how to build your first product. If you want to build your first product, please sign up to be notified when the book is available.