[E-Lang] Syntax Reductions: Consensus so far

[Tyler Close]

MarkM wrote:
> > Ok.  Fire away.  But's let's try to converge on something
> for the next
> > release quickly.  I think the #7d/#7g pair is the hard one.
>
> In the terminology of markm's email, my Peace Treaty
> proposes to put #7d in
> the pocket, and keep #7g in the language.
>
> --marcs

I agree. "E in a Walnut" is E from the perspective of a class
programmer. MarcS is probably right that the class programmer book
should be the first book.

Just to throw another log on the fire, what do you think of changing:

	def add(a, b) :any {
		a + b
	}

to:

	to add(a, b) :any {
		a + b
	}

It still means the same thing and expands to the same thing, but the
use of "to" makes it clear that we're creating a function object. This
would mean that there are 3 keywords that each do a single thing.
Seeing the keyword immediately tells me the purpose of the following
code.

Tyler