[bitc-dev] Opinions wanted: Infix shift operators

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

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
impending!

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
   thing.
   - 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
buy-in process.


shap
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/bitc-dev/attachments/20100805/df0b29cd/attachment.html