newRPL: Named subroutines proposal

[Claudio L.]

(10-12-2015 11:30 PM)Helix Wrote:  I don't like the fact that this syntax breaks the RPL logic (arguments first, followed by the function).
Furthermore, since comments will be possible in newRPL, I don't see much difference with this version of your example:

Code:

<<
      @ ADDTWO SUBROUTINE
      << 2 + >> 'ADDTWO' LSTO

      @ MAIN PROGRAM
      1234 ADDTWO
>>

True, you can always add a comment and it's almost the same.

(10-13-2015 01:55 AM)Han Wrote:  As Helix showed, LSTO is more than sufficient without also introducing flow idiosyncrasies. Moreover, I imagine the proposed syntax would also cause conflicts with tagged objects. It would seem that each instance of an embedded tagged object used within a program would result in the unnecessary creation of a corresponding local variable that may not ever be called.

I didn't think much about the syntax, it could use other characters to avoid conflicts, but if the only two people who care about this project think it's not a good idea, then it probably isn't. Let's forget about this one.