Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 19:12:38 -0700
Message-Id: <199607250212.TAA04865@kronstadt.rahul.net>
From: Ian T Zimmerman <itz@rahul.net>
To: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Subject: Re: Language improvements (?)
In article <9607240953.AA00610@sparc3.nextsolution.co.jp>
christo@nextsolution.co.jp (Frank Christoph) writes:
> No, although that would be nice too. :) I mean an indentation
> convention for lexical scoping. For example, instead of
> if x = y then (do_a; if x = z then do_b) else do_the_other_thing
>
> write:
>
> if x = y then do_a;
> if x = z then do_b
> else do_the_other_thing
>
> Here the lexical analyzer can determine that the else-clause belongs
> to the first "if" because the position of the "else" is to the left
> of the second "if" (off-side) and thus must belong to an outer
> scope.
Hmm, I sincerely hope the Caml team will _not_ follow this suggestion,
or at the very least leaves an escape in the form of a compiler switch
for those of us who dislike it.
It is a religious issue, and I see little point in repating the
arguments made many times before in comp.compilers, among other
places. I recognize the points of the other side, but this would be a
fundamental change in how the language `looks and feels' and so I
think prudence should prevail and scoping by keywords should be
preserved.
--
+-------------------------------------------+
I When the dead are left to bury the dead, I
I the living remain alone. Arthur Koestler I
+-------------------------------------------+