bearophile wrote:
> This is a short article I have just found on Reddit that shows a possible alternative syntax for C++:
> "A Modest Proposal: C++ Resyntaxed", Ben Werther & Damian Conway:
> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/HTML/ModestProposal.html
> 
> It says:
>> The language was designed to ensure that the new syntax was LALR(1) parsable, grammatically unambiguous and required no semantic feedback from parser to tokenizer.<
> 
> That reminds me of D :-)
> 

I took a look at the first reference.  The 1980 paper called "Type syntax in the language "C": an object lesson in syntactic innovation". There you can see griping about inaccuracies and incompleteness of the spec which sounds all too familiar to anyone whose been around here long.  Nice, in a way, to see that ~6 years out of the gate C was still having such problems.  Means there's hope for D yet.  :-)

--bb

Huh, that's the university I went to. Same campus, too. I even had a user
account on csse.monash.edu.au
Odd to see it turn up in the D newsgroup I guess.

On a more related note: It's an okay syntax, I wouldn't say I'm a huge fan of it but it does appear it would make cleaner code.

Jarrod:
> On a more related note: It's an okay syntax, I wouldn't say I'm a huge fan of it but it does appear it would make cleaner code.

I think no one forces you to take it all. You can adopt the bits you like of it, like some of the things I have shown, for D.

Bye,
bearophile