Selon Damphyr <damphyr / freemail.gr>:

> I can't say I can contribute much to the theoretical discussion. I can
> only say what my first impressions are (up until Brian's email I was a
> helpless spectator in an incomprehensible discussion).
> The :a syntax looks a lot like symbols, which is something I would
> avoid, in order to avoid paragraphs in documentation explaining that "in
> method declarations :x means keyword", "when calling methods :a=x is a
> keyword parameter assignment while :a is a symbol parameter" etc.

I agree. Also, the (a: "foo") syntax looks a lot like Smalltalk's named
arguments, and that gives it instant recognition.
--
Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.