Introduce single line function declaration

[lerno]

Variant 1:

// Statement
fn int square(int x) = return x * x;
fn void foo(int y) = baz(y);

Proposal 2:

fn int square(int x) = x * x;
fn void foo(int y) = baz(y);

[lerno]

Feel free to vote on this one using 👍 and 👎

[data-man]

Proposal 3:

fn int square(int x) {x * x};
fn void foo(int y) {baz(y)};

[data-man]

Proposal 4:

fn int[2] square(int x) (x * 2, x * 3);

[lerno]

3 is ambiguous. 4 would need special parsing.

[lerno]

An alternative uses =>

fn int square(int x) => return x * x;
fn void foo(int y) => baz(y);

fn int square(int x) => x * x;
fn void foo(int y) => baz(y);

[data-man]

Proposal 6: :smile:

fn int square(int x) -> return x * x;

[lerno]

I'm trying to reserve "->" in case it's needed later, plus the problem of that operator when converting C code.

[lerno]

Two variants are now available for test:

fn int square(int x) = x * x;
fn int square(int x) => x * x;

See if it actually adds any value or we remove it.

[lerno]

= is more likely to be adopted than =>

[tommy-mitchell]

Would single line functions also work for anonymous functions?

[lerno]

@tommy-mitchell They already do.

[lerno]

=> was chosen.