SMALL SYNTAX CHANGES HERE

[Pacsfury]

Create sub issues for syntax changes, that will be decided if accpeted or not with comments.

Write "ACCEPT" (thumbs up) if you want the change, "DECLINE" (thumbs down) if you dont want it. Right now, it needs 3 positives/negatives votes for being applied, with a minimum difference of two.

[Pacsfury]

by vmcrash at reddit

You already trigger the inference using val or var (instead of a type), so the := is redundant. I'd use it for something else.

What do you vote?

[Centurion774477]

It's not redundant. Languages like JavaScript and Perl aren't typed but still use keywords to create a variable like 'let', 'const', 'var', 'my', etc. Keep val; decline.

[Pacsfury]

It's not redundant. Languages like JavaScript and Perl aren't typed but still use keywords to create a variable like 'let', 'const', 'var', 'my', etc. Keep val; decline.

Thanks for voting!

[Pacsfury]

@Centurion774477 if you know someone that would like to vote, he ks welcome

[Pacsfury]

by vmcrash at reddit

I'd also would get rid of elseif, because it only saves one keystroke for the space, but makes the language more complex.

What do you vote?

[Centurion774477]

What exactly does "but makes the language more complex." mean in this scenario? Do you mean it would be more complex to parse 'else if'?

Either way, it was never about saving keystrokes; one keyword is better, whether it's elif, elsif, or elseif.

Decline.

[Pacsfury]

What exactly does "but makes the language more complex." mean in this scenario? Do you mean it would be more complex to parse 'else if'?

Either way, it was never about saving keystrokes; one keyword is better, whether it's elif, elsif, or elseif.

Decline.

Thanks for voting!

[Centurion774477]

We may want to add an alias, or change the name entirely, for the dictionary methods 'exist' and 'alive'.

The names aren't terrible so this isn't urgent by any means, but it's pretty unidiomatic.

'exist' checks if a given key has a value:

`
val dictionary := {"foo" => "bar"}

dictionary.exist("foo") // evaluates to true
`
alive checks if a given value has a key:

`
val dictionary := {"foo" => "bar"}

dictionary.alive("bar") // evaluates to true
`

It's not very idiomatic, especially 'alive'. I propose we change them to 'value_for' and 'key_for' respectively:

`
val dictionary := {"foo" => "bar"}

dictionary.value_for("foo") // evaluates to true
`

`
val dictionary := {"foo" => "bar"}

dictionary.key_for("bar") // evaluates to true
`

Also, both of these methods return a boolean value. I could see how it would be useful to receive the actual match: if you use #value_for, you would see the actual value attached to the key ("bar").

However, it's still nice having a simple boolean check because if you can verify a value corresponds to the key, then you just lookup the value in the dictionary manually.

Anyways, these changes can be an alias or a full replacement, but an alias would be preferred.

[Pacsfury]

Idk, i though of making it for a stdlib, and have a type for it, and inference only for int, char and float only. But for arrays maybe, like C ones, but we will need to define this all better

[Centurion774477]

Do what you want but it's kinda weird to have type inference only work for strings, characters, and integers, but not arrays and dictionaries. It's actually probably better do the inverse (hypothetically) because nobody wants to write dict lookupTable = {} or arr tasks = []

[Pacsfury]

Well, we could make it for arrays and dicts too, ngl, seems good

[Pacsfury]

Even thiugh that cpp devs write std::vector std::string and std::unordered_map<std::string, std::string>

[Pacsfury]

Gtg now