On 4/20/07, Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/07, Aleksey Nogin <nogin@metaprl.org> wrote:
> > On 18.04.2007 01:11, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> >

[...]

>
> > > For expressions it's more complex
> > >
> > Is it the same issue as the workaround discussion above - the "proper"
> > way to make this distinction would be to introduce a separare
> > rec_binding type similar, but separate from the binding one? But is it
> > true that the "b; b" case in the binding type is only used for records?
> > If so, it would seem that splitting the binding type would not result in
> > that much duplication. Of course, I am only starting to understand the
> > new setup, no I may be completely wrong here.
>
> Yes it is just used for records and objects {< f1 = e1 ; ... ; fN = eN >}.
>
> But having one more category seems heavy, I have to think more about it.
>

Ok, I've done it. I've added the rec_binding type, quotation and use
it for record expressions and objects {< ... >}.

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard