[bitc-dev] A curious question

[Eric Rannaud]

Hi,

On Jan 23, 2008 5:21 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap at eros-os.com> wrote:
> As we contemplate an s-block syntax for BitC, one question that emerges
> is initialization rules. In particular, BitC really wants to require
> that pointer slots (a) be initialized, and (b) be non-null.

Out of curiosity, and even tough it was already suggested in BitC's
specifications, I never quite understood why you would want to move to
an s-block syntax: is there a particularly compelling reason?

Isn't loosing the ability to have real macros somewhat on the down side?

Thanks.