[bitc-dev] Opinions wanted: Infix shift operators
Jonathan S. Shapiro
shap at eros-os.org
Thu Aug 5 21:22:12 PDT 2010
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Neil Chase <neilchase at dvol.com> wrote:
> How much of all of this discussion is needed to met BitC's objectives - a
> safe language for system programming, and how much are nice to haves?...
This is always a fair question, especially when a release is trying to be
The current discussion is actually valuable for several reasons:
- It gives us a chance to review, and perhaps discover mistakes in, my
beliefs about procedure arity being part of type. We are losing significant
kinds of expressiveness to this decision, both in genericity and in the
printf problem. If we can find a way to resolve that issue it's a good
- We're getting close to freezing a syntax, so discussions of what will
bite us in the ass with one syntax or another are timely. Discussions of the
form "I like currying, so we should do that" are less helpful; we've
discussed this issue before, and a google through the list archives would
readily show that.
And in some sense, this is the last chance for the community to push for
things that may have gotten lost in the shuffle or for which we now may have
better answers, so this last phase of discussion is actually part of the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitc-dev