Re: Better syntax for a Standard ML derivative

"David B. Benson" <dbenson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> 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.

What's SML/NJ abstract syntax?  Do you mean some internal
representation that is an artifact of that compiler?  Or just
simply typed lambda calculus?

> I doubt I will simply copy O'Caml's notations, for many reasons.  
> But I should study it more.  

Ocaml it seems to me is almost as ugly as SML.  I'd look more
in the direction of Haskell, which has a lot less clutter.

> 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?

I don't think this is needed.  Is there a practical problem with
the way Haskell syntax accomodates both styles without a pragma?