[hyperpallium]

Fantastic, thanks.

The many uses of : syntax are intriguing - lambdas, functions, control, python-style structure, data, globals. I reckon you've established it works in all cases, but I'm not yet familiar enough to see that for myself.

For initial adoption, I wonder if more regular sample code, without the special-case abbreviations, might be more effective? (Followed by the short version.) OTOH, maybe at this early stage it's best to select for developers interested/capable enough to handle it!

EDIT if : is used for both blocks and code structure, could everything be one-line (or is \n significant?) Not great style, but helps in understanding the syntax. Maybe returns and vars need their own lines?

  def find(xs, fun): for(xs) x, i: if fun(x): return i return -1

  var r = 2 var i = find [ 1, 2, 3 ]: _ > r

[Aardappel]

Yes, ":" appears a bit overloaded, though many of those cases are actually one and the same.

What would be more regular sample code? Do you mean just writing "find([ 1, 2, 3 ]) x: x > r" with explicit () and explicit variables? I agree that is easier to read, though the extreme terseness is also a feature..

Yes, everything can be one line, but in this case it would look a bit ugly:

def find(xs, fun): (for(xs) x, i: if fun(x): return i); return -1

[hyperpallium]

> Do you mean just writing "find([ 1, 2, 3 ]) x: x > r" with explicit () and explicit variables? I agree that is easier to read, though the extreme terseness is also a feature..

Yes, amd yes it depends on the purpose. For learning, it can be impossible to parse; redundancy helps distinguish parts and provides a check you got it right.

OTOH for showcasing features, IMHO, the generality of : is a more impressive feature to demo.

Anyway, it's certainly intriguing! And maybe that's the true purpose of showcase code...