Personnaly I would let the caml like syntax, for not having to switch between two habits for languages I do not use on a day to day basis.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Rick R <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > It's subjectively more readable: > > char list vs. list [of] char. > > >From my perspective, the concern would be on the one hand that this > readability may not extend gracefully to multiple type arguments (in > OCaml these are parenthesized), but on the other that the prefix > notation wants to look like application, and I'm not sure how that's > going to work out (need to try it in the parser). > > shap > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev > _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
