Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> mentions ``%''
as possible alternative to ``:'' in the labelling syntax and writes:
>
> In this case, I suppose we should read `%' as `is'.
I have difficulties with this --- after all
it is a ``percent'' glyph,
and more comfortable in a division context.
It would even be easier for me to read ``&'' as ``is'',
after all, ``&'' is ``et'',
so there is only one ``s'' missing to ``est''. ;-)
For me, an additional argument for keeping ``:''
is that ``:'' is punctuation,
which I find appropriate for this use,
while ``%'' and ``#'' look more like infix operators.
I definitely prefer ``:''.
Concerning the use of ``:'' in type signatures,
I would write the blanks even if I didn't have to.
(I do so in Haskell.)
Regards,
Wolfram
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 15:12:05 MET