I think the issues with syntax can't be addressed without first figuring out what semantics you want, which is still unclear in many cases.
-
-
Also I think you and I may mean different things by "syntax".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What's your definition?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What order the tokens go in and how they're spelled.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I am also including what the syntax attempts to express and how it is understood by human programmers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Right, that was my expectation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What do you call this extension?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The language. ;) Less flippantly, I'd say that I don't think we can draw a line that's concretely about "what people write down" that's separate from the rest of the language design.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
To take an example, in typed languages, some languages make you write types on the parameters of anonymous functions, others will in general infer them. That's about what you write, but also about lots of fundamental design choices that are not "syntax".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
But on the other hand, most languages with type inference have some kind of type parameter semantics in the internal algorithms, and even surface them in some ways as language features (e.g. languages that require annotations on declared functions but not anonymous closures)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That was a silly example but please don't over-rotate on the ways in which it was a bad example of the phenomenon I'm sure you would agree exists 
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.