Re: Better syntax for a Standard ML derivative

"David B. Benson" <dbenson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> Thanks for the suggestions. I'm a bit uncertain what
> 'radically' might mean, but I'll ponder upon it.

What I mean is if you want to design a language with different syntax
than SML, go ahead and do so, without making particular effort to
minimize the difference.  IMO it's actually harder for a user to
remember small differences than large ones.

I always found SML syntax pretty ugly, but the semantics fairly easy
to understand; as opposed to Haskell, which is the other way around.

Maybe I'm not using the word "syntax" the right way; I just mean the
keywords and so forth that determine the superficial appearance to a
human.  I.e. what I'm referring to is separate from the type system.