[bitc-dev] OCaml syntax question

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Geoffrey Irving <irving at naml.us> wrote:

> The basic reason is that because ever variable binding in ocaml
> introduces a new indentation level, a program that added extra spaces
> every time you add a scope would quickly develop an absurd level of
> indentation.
>
> Note: I'm aware you might strongly disagree, and am just trying to
> explain how at least one ex-ocaml programmer thinks about ocaml
> syntax.

First, thanks, that statement makes sense.

Second, I'm not opposed to a binding form that operates this way. I
just don't think it should be called LET because of history. Perhaps
DEF, or perhaps something else, but not LET.