> How about removing the `where' from `module...where' and
> `interface...where' ...
>
> The reason we used the "module...where" convention is to allow for
> multiple modules to be included in one "file". Your proposal is
> workable, but requires saying something extra about what terminates
> a module. I agree, however, that having to write "where" all the
> time is a pain (I still forget to put it in sometimes!), so perhaps
> you could complete the proposal with the wording required to say when
> a module ends.
I suggest:
*) remove the paragraph about top-level indenting from 1.5
*) change 5.2:
script -> module1 module2 ... (n>=1)
module -> { [header ; body] [;] } | { header[;] } | { body[;] }
header -> { [moddecl ; impfix] [;] } | { moddecl[;] } | { impfix[;] }
impfix -> { [impdecls ; fixdecls] [;]} | { impdecls[;] } | { fixdecls[;] }
moddecl -> `module' modid [exports]
body -> topdecls
NB The form { ... [[fixdecls ;] topdecls [;]] } in the current syntax is
inconsistent in disallowing {;} which other blocks in the syntax allow.
*) change the text of 5.2 to correspond, and in particular change the second
paragraph to:
If the first lexeme in a module is not a {, then the layout rule applies
for the top level of the module. Several modules may appear in one script.
Each module ends when the `module' keyword of the next is encountered. An
abbreviated form of module is permitted, which omits the moddecl. If this
is used, the moddecl is assumed to be `module Main'. An abbreviated module
may not appear in the same script as some unabbreviated modules.
NB The first paragraph of 5.2 *already* uses the term body for the topdecls
alone, in contradiction to the current syntax.
*) do the same for interfaces in 5.3 (we don't want modules and interfaces in
the same file, do we?) and change B.4, B.5, B.6 to match.
Ian
