Multiple form of "then" sugar

[emil14]

Now we have a.b -> (c.d -> e.f.) which means "sending from a.b triggers sending from c.d to e.f"

But what if we wanna say "sending from a.b triggers multiple things"?

Now we have to do something like this

a.b -> (c.d -> e.f)
a.b -> (g.h -> k.l)

Which isn't consistent with both multiple senders and multiple receivers forms.

Multiple senders:

a {
    .b -> ...
    .c -> ...
}

Multiple receivers:

a.b -> {
    c.d
    e.f
}

Proposal syntax:

This is how it could look like

a.b -> (
    c.d -> e.f
    g.h -> k.l
)

Of course we can combine them

a {
    .b -> (
        c.d -> { ... }
        e {
            .g -> ...
        }
    )
    .c -> {
        ...
    }
}

---

P.S - This is made up example but it looks scary so we need to think twice before releasing both multi-senders and (especially) "multi-then"

[emil14]

This is how this code would look like without both multi-senders and multi-then sugars:

a.b -> (c.d -> { ... })
a.b -> (e.g -> ... )
a.c -> { ... }

And this is how it would look like with multi-then but without multi-senders:

a.b -> (
    c.d -> { ... }
    e.g -> ... 
)
a.c -> { ... }

[emil14]

I think we shouldn't implement both of these forms at this point. It's harder to remove stuff than to add. I'm not sure that these two add much value so there are much more important things to work on (like bugs in compiler or analyzer improvements)

[emil14]

Multiple then connections syntax sugar is implemented

Multiple senders form isn't and probably won't be as leading to complicated code and too many ways to do the same thing