Selon Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire / free.fr>:

>
> class String
>   def chop@jcode # "define chop at jcode"
>   ...
>   end
> end
>

I know it's not nice to reply to one's own mail, but looking at it again I
realised that putting the namespace after the method allows one to use
namespaces for class and singleton methods without syntax problems. On can
simply write:

def obj.method@namespace
...
end

without having to wonder whether the namespace should come before or after the
object name (yes, I know using "class <<obj; def method@namespace ... end; end"
solves the problem also, but it's nicer if the namespace syntax can easily
support *all* existing syntaxes :) ).

Now the only problem would be how difficult it would be to parse my proposal...
--
Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.