On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 21:01 +0100, Eric Rannaud wrote: > Hi, > > On Jan 23, 2008 5:21 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As we contemplate an s-block syntax for BitC, one question that emerges > > is initialization rules. In particular, BitC really wants to require > > that pointer slots (a) be initialized, and (b) be non-null. > > Out of curiosity, and even tough it was already suggested in BitC's > specifications, I never quite understood why you would want to move to > an s-block syntax: is there a particularly compelling reason?
Yes. Human factors. The desire to deploy this language in the real world basically requires ditching the current syntax, and our original reason for introducing it no longer applies. > Isn't loosing the ability to have real macros somewhat on the down side? Oh no. Permanently eradicating the remotest possibility that some bright soul might contrive to introduce a macro system is one of the few genuinely positive points about shifting to an s-block syntax. In the presence of a macro expansion system, human code inspection is hopelessly compromised. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
