On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Geoffrey Irving <[email protected]> wrote:
> The basic reason is that because ever variable binding in ocaml > introduces a new indentation level, a program that added extra spaces > every time you add a scope would quickly develop an absurd level of > indentation. > > Note: I'm aware you might strongly disagree, and am just trying to > explain how at least one ex-ocaml programmer thinks about ocaml > syntax. First, thanks, that statement makes sense. Second, I'm not opposed to a binding form that operates this way. I just don't think it should be called LET because of history. Perhaps DEF, or perhaps something else, but not LET. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
