[bitc-dev] Opinions wanted: Infix shift operators

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

Because the currying syntax doesn't work when procedure arity is part of
type.

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva <
tolkiendili at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitc-dev mailing list
> bitc-dev at coyotos.org
> http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/bitc-dev/attachments/20100805/0e4a4a07/attachment.html