I was discussing the following extension to current syntax with Swaroop: (forall ((Constraint 'a)) def-1 ... def-n)
The intuition here is that *if* we find ourselves rewriting constraints a lot then it might be pleasant (from a textual perspective) to gather all related definitions under a common form. The *problem* with this is that the actual scope of the FORALL is per-definition. That is, the above is syntactic sugar for: (forall ((Constraint 'a)) def-1) ... (forall ((Constraint 'a)) def-n) I would like to get reaction on this. Would people find this sort of syntactic sugar confusing or helpful? It's relevant because I'm currently working out the block structured BitC syntax, and this construct is much more natural in that syntax. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
