On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 11:02 -0500, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > You all know that I've done some preliminary work toward a post-sexpr > surface syntax. Most of it looks straightforward.
Would it be possible to elaborate a bit on how this new surface syntax would look like? From [1] I would expect it to be similar to the C-family of languages, and from [2] that it would not be ML-like. As a personal preference I very much prefer ML-like syntax (F#, SML, OCaml) over C-style syntax. So I would be interested to know the arguments that make you prefer the C style. Also I think surface syntax matters, so I would welcome a more detailed discussion about it. Now seems to be the right time, or not? Many thanks, Levi -------------------- [1] http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/bitc-dev/2006-August/000771.html [2] http://www.bitc-lang.org/docs/bitc/bitc-origins.html _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
