On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:44 +0000, Eric Rannaud wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 10:33 -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > Given an application of the form > > > > (a.x [args]) > > O'Caml uses a#x for method calls, and it looks OK. I believe that could > be compatible with BitC's current syntax.
Yes, it could. Especially so since '#' is not otherwise legal in identifiers. > Question: would such a method call notation be somewhat disturbing as it > suggests the first argument is somehow privileged? Why does it suggest that? shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
