James

Just getting my head around this; in your examples, what is the default behaviour where no initialization specifier(?) is present: ``` // ✅ - we can prove this is safe....

Makes sense - thanks. One last (honest!) question about function parameters. Is it intended to allow this?: ``` fn F(x: T); F(copy escaped); ``` I could get a similar end...

I like it! FWIW it gets a +1 from me.

@geoffromer Is the aim for the grammar to be LL(1)? I can see reference to "finite bounded lookahead" and "context free", i.e. wanting some flavour of LL(k) / LR(k) (and...

> @geoffromer Is the aim for the grammar to be LL(1)? I can see reference to "finite bounded lookahead" and "context free", i.e. wanting some flavour of LL(k) / LR(k)...

FWIW I think they are useful, and as the aim is for the language to have a formal specification, constructing it could end up just being part of the CI...

Yep sorry, errant comma was a copy-pasta. The issue is the name not being supported as you show.

That all makes sense. Pretty easy to add a new python cmakelists which is conditionally included if the version is appropriate, likewise including the existing cmakelists if the version is...

Worth noting that Kotlin has a similar concept, which when added with other language features makes for some very expressive coding opportunities: https://kotlinlang.org/docs/lambdas.html#function-literals-with-receiver It also implements a default binding to...

FWIW I've basically come to the same conclusion (less the adding raw identifiers to the C++ compiler idea). For exported names, this could look like having something following the attribute...