[bitc-dev] DISCUSS: macros and surface syntax

Jonathan S. Shapiro shap at eros-os.com
Fri Jul 18 09:22:04 CDT 2008

On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 09:51 -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> But I don't think sweet expressions are the answer for BitC. The idea is
> quite clever, but I see two problems with it...

And a third item: the sweet expression syntax is actually not backwards
compatible in the way that David claims. In particular:

  f(a b c)

doesn't work because '(' already means application. This construct is

  (f (a b c))

which is to say that f takes one argument. Not quite what we had in

That isn't hard to deal with. All it says is that the sweet expression
syntax cannot just be dropped in while leaving the existing syntax


More information about the bitc-dev mailing list