Devin Mullins <twifkak / comcast.net> writes:

> Daniel Brockman wrote:
>
>> I realize that °∆not foo not bar and not baz°« would be confusing.
>> But I maintain that there is only one way to parse °∆assert not foo?°«,
>> and that it looks better than °∆assert !foo?°«.
>
> Well, I agree with you.

Good to hear. :-)

> There's only one way to parse `assert puts foo` that I know of, too.

Yes, I'd like to see this

   foo bar baz, moomin snufkin

become shorthand for this,

   foo bar(baz), moomin(snufkin)

and what's the deal with this being disallowed?

   foo bar(baz, moomin snufkin)

> Also, I like the ability to do a LISP-with-commas syntax,

Hmm, for a while I thought I had invented that. :-)

> though Ruby disallows it sometimes.

When does Ruby disallow it?

-- 
Daniel Brockman <daniel / brockman.se>

    So really, we all have to ask ourselves:
    Am I waiting for RMS to do this?   --TTN.