On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Ben Karel <esc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regardless of which input surface syntax is provisionally chosen, it might > be nice to retain prettyprinters for both, so that as the stdlib evolves, > you (and we!) can see real, non-trivial concrete examples for direct > comparison. >
I'm not sure I understand. Much of the debate over the last week has been determining whether a curry-style syntax is compatible with fast calling conventions. We can now see that the answer is "no". I'm disinclined to maintain multiple pretty printers. It's hard enough to maintain *one* compiler. My plan is to make a reference lexer, parser, and type checker part of the standard library. That should go a long way toward letting people experiment in the way that you suggest, and also toward supporting various sorts of analysis tools. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list bitc-dev@coyotos.org http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
