On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:29 PM, wren ng thornton <[email protected]> wrote:
> In particular, it's fine to define > the *function* _+_ by saying it's equal to add (and then > specifying/relying on inlining to remove the indirection); but having > _+_ belong to a separate ontological category from add is just begging > for problems. > I tend to agree. Unfortunately there is a moderately bad problem with this: it ties the name of the syntactic element to the name of the function. So now, if I want to define a completely new syntax in which _+_ means something else entirely, I get tied up in namespace issues... I confess that I'm not very sure what to do about this, and for the moment I'm actually implementing what you advocate. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
