This sounds more like an IDE issue to me.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Brandon Barker <brandon.bar...@gmail.com>
> Replying to the concise syntax issue in particular: I like concise syntax
> up to a point, but when it comes to types, explicit syntax is sometimes
> nice (though it would be great to allow the user to choose). Both to make
> compilation proceed quicker (possibly), and to make it more obvious what
> code is doing when you read it.
> One area where working in ATS actually seems to prevent this is when
> implementing a function specified elsewhere. Maybe this is just a user
> error from me, but I tried last night to *implement main0(argc, argv):
> void *after looking up the types in the ATS2 sources after grepping for a
> bit, and was able to do it up to a point: I could do something like
> implement *main0(argc: int, argv): void*. But then, I wasn't able to
> figure out how to get it further refined and add *argc: int n *in the
> implementation view. I guess this is code duplication to a certain extent,
> so I don't necessarily think it is a great style. On the other hand, it
> seems a bit inconvenient to have to go look in a sats file to see the
> specification for a function.
> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 1:59:54 PM UTC-5, gmhwxi wrote:
>> Haskell and Idris are definitely on my radar.
>> Type inference in ATS is very week (largely due to the support
>> for dependent types and linear types). To support concise syntax,
>> type inference in ATS needs to greatly strengthened.
>> On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 8:34:48 PM UTC-5, vamchale wrote:
>>> I don't have any concrete suggestions, but I would suggest Idris as an
>>> example to follow. Haskell syntax is relatively popular and concise, and
>>> Idris' is even more refined.
>>> I will say I'd prefer syntax that eases functional programming, but that
>>> might just be me. And I think that replacing -<lincloptr1> with something
>>> more concise like -o would be a good decision either way.
>>> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:15:22 PM UTC-6, gmhwxi wrote:
>>>> For the moment, I just want to open a thread for ATS3.
>>>> I decided to pick ATS/Xanadu for the full project name. I like the name
>>>> because it is poetic and brings a feel of exoticness.
>>>> ATS3 is supposed to be compiled to ATS2. At least at the beginning. I
>>>> will try to
>>>> write more about what I have in mind regarding ATS3.
>>>> I know that a lot of people have been complaining about the syntax of
>>>> ATS2. So
>>>> we can start the effort of designing some "nice" syntax for ATS3.
>>>> Please feel free
>>>> to post here if you would like share your opinions and ideas.
>>>> I will be happy to take the lead but we definitely need to have some
>>>> form of community
>>>> effort on this project given its size and scope.
>>>> PS: I felt rushed every time up to now when implementing ATS. This time
>>>> I am hoping
>>>> to have the luxury of thinking about implementation a bit before
>>>> actually doing it :)
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ats-lang-users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ats-lang-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ats-lang-users.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ats-lang-users.
To view this discussion on the web visit