On Feb 12, 12:55 pm, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
> wrote:
....
> I.e. what I'm referring to is separate from the type system.
Yes, strictly speaking, or rathr following the tradition for
types, types are part of the syntax. However, there is nothing
wrong with the type system (that cannot be esaily extended).
When people say SML syntax is baroque, they are refering to
what is more precisely called the surface syntax.
I don't mind changing the surface syntax so long as I can
parse this into SML/NJ abstract syntax. Given the generality
this provides, I'm fairly free to do as I please.
However, I am disinclined to do so without suggestions from
others, as I would like to produce a language that people
might actually care to program in. :-)
I doubt I will simply copy O'Caml's notations, for many reasons. But
I should study it more. The comment about
copying code breaking something due to indentation-only style
is most valuable. Thanks, Jon. What about a pragma for
switching between the two styles?
Your suggestions and Jon's are helpful. Keep it up.
Others?
|
