Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how would postfix notation be at all helpful for type construction? It seems like every sane language puts the Constructor name 1st. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:39 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;">One curiosity on the ML family is that value constructors default to<br>
prefix notation (constructor name first), while type names use postfix<br>
notation.<br>
<br>
Because BitC has n-ary functions and constructors, the postfix type<br>
notation may turn out not to work for us -- I'm not yet sure. If it<br>
does, should we continue in the OCaml convention on this?<br>
<br>
<br>
shap<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>