3 ms·

TBH that sounds a lot like Zig (it has two loop keywords though: for and while, but those are for different use cases - for is only for iterating over ranges, a

TBH that sounds a lot like Zig (it has two loop keywords though: for and while, but those are for different use cases - for is only for iterating over ranges, and while is the 'vanilla loop' for everything else). Zig does introduce a bit of syntax pollution for its comptime features though (mainly the 'inline' variants of existing keywords), and it adds some syntax sugar for the builtin error handling and optionals - so it's essentially a dismantled C which is then slightly extended into a different direction.

sylware 4y ago
This is one too many loop keyword. And something must be done about breaking changes of the syntax (or any never ending "features" additions). We all know that some syntaxic constructs will be nasty in the end and will reasonably need fixing (basically, to keep them excrusiatingly simple from a compiler writing point of view). I am thinking about something like "syntax breakage provisions" from the language authors: for instance, no more than 4 iterations of major syntax breakages, then the language syntax will be frozen for forever. Whatever, I am a everything in assembly kind of guy (with high-level language interpreters written themselves in assembly). All that is a thought experiment for me, nothing more.