Given Tcl 8.5's [{*}] expand feature, and an [Getting rid of the value/command
dichotomy for Tcl 9%|%earlier thought experiment] about adding a leading `$` to
every command, What would a system be like if it worked as follows - this
notation:

======
set obj {...}
set result [obj arg1 arg2 arg3]
======

... would behave as if it had been written as follows in Tcl 8.5:

======
set obj {...}
set result [{*}$obj arg1 arg2 arg3]
======

It obviously wouldn't be Tcl, since the variable and command namespace get
mixed up when you start doing this.

But suppose you didn't care (Tcl 3000!) - would it be ''useful? convenient?
worth looking into?''

[MJ]:  I am not seeing the use for the implicit `$`, is it so much trouble to
write `$obj arg1 arg2 arg3`? Autoexpansion of the leading word would be very
useful however (especially in OO type constructs and functional programming). 

It seems you are suggesting unification of variables and procs, which sounds a
lot like the concept of slots in [Self Programming Language%|%Self], in that
case `$` will become unnecessary. Getting the value of a var is simply [[var]].

[DKF]: This idea ("auto expand leading word") has been known about and
discussed (on and off, when we've nothing else to do) for years.

[JJS]: Isn't this a lot like [interp alias]?

======
interp alias {} obj {} ...      ;# instead of set obj {...}
set result [obj arg1 arg2 arg3] ;# works like {*}$obj
======

[NEM]: The difference is that variables can be local to a [proc]edure whereas
aliases can't.  With [apply] you can now have procedures that are stored in
local variables, but not commands in general, and the syntax could be better. I
wrote some thoughts about ways to accomplish the same thing in a hypothetical
Tcl 3000 here [http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~nem/tcl/resources.html].

----

[RS]: See [Let unknown know] how to tweak Tcl that it does auto-expansion of
leading word... :^)

<<categories>> Discussion | Design | Syntax