Steve:
This is good input, and it's something I was going to bring up, but
let's do it in a new discussion thread.
All: In the interest of finding our discussions later, it's helpful if
we all take two steps when we introduce a new topic:
1. Change the subject line.
2. Do it as a "compose" rather than a "reply", because Mailman and other
agents thread messages together on the basis of the replied-to message ID.
*Please* feel free to bring something like this forward -- it's really
welcome -- but let's try to make sure we can find it later.
Jonathan
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Steven Shaw <[email protected]> wrote:
> FWIW I prefer what I think is the "Niklaus Wirth style syntax" for
> declarations at least (perhaps it just follows normal mathematical
> notation but I''m no mathematician).
>
> Looks like:
>
> name: Type
>
> rather than:
>
> Type name;
>
> The tradition of Pascal/Modula/Oberon/ML/Eiffel has been picked up
> recently for Scala (even though Java is of the Algol/C tradition). It
> seems better to have the type on the right so that you can elide it
> when it can be inferred. I recall there being an alternative
> pascal-like syntax for C++ that certainly made function pointer
> declarations easier to read. Google found it here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significantly_Prettier_and_Easier_C%2B%2B_Syntax
>
> Cheers,
> Steve.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitc-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
