[bitc-dev] Opinions wanted: Infix shift operators

[Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva]

2010/7/27 Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap at eros-os.org>:
> I promised that I wasn't going to solicit surface syntax opinions. I lied.
> :-) This one is a question that just about anyone can usefully contribute
> on, so it will give me a chance to find out how many of you are still
> actually *reading* this list. :-)
>
> I have provisionally decided to adopt the template-like syntax of C#, where
> one writes:
>
>    struct S<typevar, typevar>... { ... }

Hi!

Why not do like haskell and say

S typevar typevar

instead of S<typevar, typevar>?

Like Either Integer String

also, this is the right syntax, for me:

identifier :: type
definition of the identifier ..

that is: for any expression, (expression :: type) is the same
expression with a type constraint; plus, defining the type of a
identifier we will introduce later is just constraining its type first

(you can use : instead of ::, etc)

much more cleaner than anything you can achieve with C++-style <>, :(

-- 
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva <tolkiendili at gmail.com>