I rather like <br> let { binding and binding and binding in EXPR} <br><br>or let binding<br> binding<br> binding<br> in EXPR<br><br><br>This leaves no question in the reader's mind about the scope of the variables. It is explicit that all variables share the same scope, which is the intent here, isn't it? <br>
<br>If you want nested levels of scope, then put another let block in the EXPR. <br><br>This is basically Haskell syntax, perhaps I'm already showing by bias.<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:shap@eros-os.com">shap@eros-os.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Binding forms that introduce inner scopes should be distinct from<br>
those that merely append definitions to the current scope. I do<br>
understand that appending actually does introduce a new scope. The<br>
issue is that in one type of form the scopes end in the same place,<br>
where in the other they do not.<br>
<br>
I'm currently inclined to favor a syntax very similar to OCaml:<br>
<br>
let BINDING { and BINDING } in EXPR end<br>
<br>
and other forms similarly.<br>
<br>
<br>
Strong objections or alternatives?<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitc-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:bitc-dev@coyotos.org">bitc-dev@coyotos.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev" target="_blank">http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. <br> - A. Einstein<br>