On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 12:54:47AM +0200, Stefan Matthias Aust wrote:
> >But I have always thought that syntax for specifying array literals
> >that contain expression values was needed.  The {} syntax seems as 
> >good as any.
> 
> IMHO, the braces always looked somewhat alien.
> 
> However, just an idea but has anybody ever considers something like LISP's
> or SCHEME's unquote mechanism?  While
> 
> `( (+ 1 2) 4)
> 
> is a constant expression consisting of one literal array and a 4,
> 
> `( ,(+ 1 2) 4)
> 
> is an array containing 3 and 4.
> 
> In Smalltalk
> 
> #( ^(1 + 2) 4)
> 
> with "^" meaning somthing like escape could work...

IMHO, overloading the meaning of "^" is probably worse.  Personally,
I'm not bothered by braces--after all, they can't be used as binary
messages regardless.

Personally, I love them.  I just want to make sure that some later
release will horribly break my code.


			       --Chris