"Hal E. Fulton" <hfulton / austin.rr.com> wrote:

>Just because changes to the core language should be
>done with caution.

Sure.

>It involves an actual parser change (as you know), not 
>just an additional method in a class or something.

So what?  As long as compatibility is kept, I don't see a great
difference in adding syntax rules or methods.  Actually, sometimes you
can't even distinguish these cases.  For example, it doesn't matter
for Ruby, whether "attr" is a method or "return" a statement. The
first could be a statement, the latter could be implemented as a
method (at least if you'd have something like Smalltalk's
"thisContext").  If I overwrite "attr" in my programs, this the same
kind of semantic change to the language as if I change "parse.y".

>I think "not" should be applied to an expression ("not some_expr").

Why not allow both?

Ruby also allows both "if ... then..." and "... if ..."

>I won't fight it with my life; if it made its way into the syntax, I just
>wouldn't use it.

This is always the freedom you have.

bye
-- 
Stefan Matthias Aust \/ Truth Until Paradox