[bitc-dev] Current thoughts on mixfix

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:29 PM, wren ng thornton <wren at freegeek.org> wrote:

> In particular, it's fine to define
> the *function* _+_ by saying it's equal to add (and then
> specifying/relying on inlining to remove the indirection); but having
> _+_ belong to a separate ontological category from add is just begging
> for problems.
>

I tend to agree. Unfortunately there is a moderately bad problem with this:
it ties the name of the syntactic element to the name of the function.

So now, if I want to define a completely new syntax in which _+_ means
something else entirely, I get tied up in namespace issues...

I confess that I'm not very sure what to do about this, and for the moment
I'm actually implementing what you advocate.

shap
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/bitc-dev/attachments/20100904/43fbbf7c/attachment.html