In article <1042s2o$3d58h$1@dont-email.me>,   
   Ruvim   wrote:   
   >On 2025-06-24 01:03, minforth wrote:   
   >[...]   
   >   
   >> For me, the small syntax extension is a convenience when working   
   >> with longer definitions. A bit contrived (:= synonym for TO):   
   >>   
   >> : SOME-APP { a f: b c | temp == n: flag z: freq }   
   >> \ inputs: integer a, floats b c   
   >> \ uninitialized: float temp   
   >> \ outputs: integer flag, complex freq   
   >>   <: FUNC < ... calc function ... > ;>   
   >   
   >BTW, why do you prefer the special syntax `<: ... ;>`   
   >over an extension to the existing words `:` and `;`   
   >   
   >   : SOME-APP   
   >      [ : FUNC < ... calc function ... > ; ]   
   >      < ... >   
   >   ;   
   >   
   >In this approach the word `:` knows that it's a nested definition and   
   >behaves accordingly.   
      
   Or it has not even know it, if [ is smart enough to compile a jump to   
   after ]. (That was the idea of the 4 brackets of the apocalypse.)   
   The advantage that you need not modify any defining word.   
      
   >Ruvim   
   >   
   --   
   The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.   
   The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy   
   over 80 years, like Western Europe.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)