Modified some of the syntax playground
This commit is contained in:
parent
f625b80d0c
commit
4a366fda30
@ -6,36 +6,36 @@ fn main() {
|
||||
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@annotations are with @-
|
||||
@annotations use the @ sigil
|
||||
|
||||
// variable expressions
|
||||
var a: I32 = 20
|
||||
const b: String = 20
|
||||
//variable declaration works like Rust
|
||||
let a: I32 = 20
|
||||
let mut b: String = 20
|
||||
|
||||
there(); can(); be(); multiple(); statements(); per_line();
|
||||
|
||||
//string interpolation
|
||||
const yolo = "I have ${a + b} people in my house"
|
||||
// maybe
|
||||
let yolo = "I have ${a + b} people in my house"
|
||||
|
||||
// let expressions ??? not sure if I want this
|
||||
// let expressions
|
||||
let a = 10, b = 20, c = 30 in a + b + c
|
||||
|
||||
//list literal
|
||||
const q = [1,2,3,4]
|
||||
let q = [1,2,3,4]
|
||||
|
||||
//lambda literal
|
||||
q.map({|item| item * 100 })
|
||||
//lambda literal - uses haskell-ish syntax
|
||||
q.map(\(item) { item * 100 })
|
||||
|
||||
fn yolo(a: MyType, b: YourType): ReturnType<Param1, Param2> {
|
||||
if a == 20 {
|
||||
return "early"
|
||||
}
|
||||
var sex = 20
|
||||
sex
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
/* for/while loop topics */
|
||||
//TODO I can probably get away with having one of `for`, `while`
|
||||
|
||||
//infinite loop
|
||||
while {
|
||||
@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ fn main() {
|
||||
|
||||
/* conditionals/pattern matching */
|
||||
|
||||
// "is" operator for "does this pattern match"
|
||||
// `is` functions as an operator asking "does this pattern match"
|
||||
|
||||
x is Some(t) // type bool
|
||||
|
||||
@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ if x {
|
||||
//syntax is, I guess, for <expr> <brace-block>, where <expr> is a bool, or a <arrow-expr>
|
||||
|
||||
// type level alises
|
||||
typealias <name> = <other type> #maybe thsi should be 'alias'?
|
||||
type alias <name> = <other type> #maybe thsi should be 'alias'?
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
what if type A = B meant that you could had to create A's with A(B), but when you used A's the interface was exactly like B's?
|
||||
@ -94,12 +94,12 @@ what if type A = B meant that you could had to create A's with A(B), but when yo
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
//declaring types of all stripes
|
||||
type MyData = { a: i32, b: String }
|
||||
type MyData = { a: i32, b: String } // shorthand special-case for `type MyData = MyData { a: i32, b: String }`
|
||||
type MyType = MyType
|
||||
type Option<a> = None | Some(a)
|
||||
type Signal = Absence | SimplePresence(i32) | ComplexPresence {a: i32, b: MyCustomData}
|
||||
|
||||
//traits
|
||||
//traits TODO I probably want to rename this
|
||||
|
||||
trait Bashable { }
|
||||
trait Luggable {
|
||||
@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ what if type A = B meant that you could had to create A's with A(B), but when yo
|
||||
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
// lambdas
|
||||
// ruby-style not rust-style
|
||||
const a: X -> Y -> Z = {|x,y| }
|
||||
// lambdas - maybe I want to use ruby-style (not rust style) syntax
|
||||
// e.g.
|
||||
// Also TODO Nix uses `X: Y: Z` for in its value-level syntax, why can't I?
|
||||
let a: X -> Y -> Z = {|x,y| }
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user