Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Re: Revised syntax question
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: qrczak@k...
Subject: Re: Revised syntax question
Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Brian Rogoff <bpr@best.com> pisze:

> Do you still keep a "do" for loops in your syntax? One of my goals 
> was to unify the syntaxes for looping and sequencing a bit.

I thought the primary goal was to make it look like Haskell :-)

Wed, 27 Sep 2000 07:50:12 +0200, Daniel de Rauglaudre <daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr> pisze:

> (Explanation: when you write in OCaml syntax:
>       e1; e2; let x1 = f1 in e3; e4
> actually, this sequence has 3 (not 4) expressions:
>       e1; e2; (let x1 = f1 in e3; e4)
> since the binding x1 = f1 runs up to e4; in my syntax you have to write:
>       do e1; e2; return let x1 = f1 in do e3; return e4
> and I recognize it is ugly.)

Fortunately e3; e4 is not an expression in the revised syntax,
so this syntax would be IMHO nice:

  do e1; e2; let x = f1; e3; return e4

-- 
 __("<  Marcin Kowalczyk * qrczak@knm.org.pl http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
 \__/
  ^^                      SYGNATURA ZASTĘPCZA
QRCZAK