En rñÑonse Ara.T.Howard :
>>
>> Does it mean "method(bool ? 42 : (0b101010)) { "block"}"?
> 
> 
> yes.
> 

Difficult to parse indeed...

>> Also, doesn't the presence of the "?" make the ":" unambiguous in this 
>> case?
>> Just asking, I really don't know.
> 
> probably.  i don't know either.  just seem potentially confounding.
> 

I'd say it has the same potential of confusion as symbols, since you can 
have both ":name" and "bool ? 42 : name". If this isn't considered an 
issue (and it seems it isn't :) ), I don't think my proposal would be 
one either. Otherwise, I think Eric's proposal might be an idea too 
(although in this case *I* am concerned about possibilities of confusion 
by lack of notice of the symbol).

But matz said he would think about it. I'm really honoured already, and 
I don't mind that much if it doesn't make it, as long as we get an 
aesthetic and practical syntax.
-- 
Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.