Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how would postfix notation be at all helpful for type construction? It seems like every sane language puts the Constructor name 1st.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]>wrote: > One curiosity on the ML family is that value constructors default to > prefix notation (constructor name first), while type names use postfix > notation. > > Because BitC has n-ary functions and constructors, the postfix type > notation may turn out not to work for us -- I'm not yet sure. If it > does, should we continue in the OCaml convention on this? > > > shap > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev > -- We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. - A. Einstein
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
