Re: Better syntax for a Standard ML derivative

On Feb 11, 6:24 pm, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
> wrote:
....
>
> It's optional in Haskell (you can use { ... ; ... } instead)
> and that approach seems reasonable.
>
> If you're going to rework SML syntax, I think it's better to rework
> it radically than tweak it here and there.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm a bit uncertain what
'radically' might mean, but I'll ponder upon it.

Further comments are most welcome!