On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Jeff Ohlstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > Sorry if I'm not supposed to be sending to this list since I'm not > really a BitC dev...
The list is not limited to developers. >, but I think SML's syntax for this is nicer than > Ocaml's and is worth looking at. > A let binding in that has this form: > let > val a = expr > val b = expr > ... > in > expr > end How is this different from what I suggested, modulo the fact that I haven't defined a binding syntax yet? > And this whole thing is a perfectly valid expression, so they can be > nested if really necessary. I don't know if this still possesses the > shift-reduce conflict that Ocaml's does... There are other conflicts in SML, but syntactically speaking SML is *much* better than OCaml. It always amazes me how the same people who appreciate elegance in type theory are complete syntactic luddites. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
