On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > Binding forms that introduce inner scopes should be distinct from > those that merely append definitions to the current scope. I do > understand that appending actually does introduce a new scope. The > issue is that in one type of form the scopes end in the same place, > where in the other they do not. > > I'm currently inclined to favor a syntax very similar to OCaml: > > let BINDING { and BINDING } in EXPR end > > and other forms similarly.
What would be the syntax for appending a definition to the current scope? Geoffrey _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
