Hi, On Jan 23, 2008 5:21 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As we contemplate an s-block syntax for BitC, one question that emerges > is initialization rules. In particular, BitC really wants to require > that pointer slots (a) be initialized, and (b) be non-null.
Out of curiosity, and even tough it was already suggested in BitC's specifications, I never quite understood why you would want to move to an s-block syntax: is there a particularly compelling reason? Isn't loosing the ability to have real macros somewhat on the down side? Thanks. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
