On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 09:51 -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> But I don't think sweet expressions are the answer for BitC. The idea is
> quite clever, but I see two problems with it...
And a third item: the sweet expression syntax is actually not backwards
compatible in the way that David claims. In particular:
f(a b c)
doesn't work because '(' already means application. This construct is
actually
(f (a b c))
which is to say that f takes one argument. Not quite what we had in
mind.
That isn't hard to deal with. All it says is that the sweet expression
syntax cannot just be dropped in while leaving the existing syntax
alone.
shap
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
