On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Keean Schupke <ke...@fry-it.com> wrote:
> > On 18 May 2015 17:07, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <s...@eros-os.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Keean Schupke <ke...@fry-it.com> wrote: > >> > >> To clarify I am suggesting a single, multi equals let as the way it > should be done, not necessarily the way other people do it. > > > > Clear, but not what we are going to do. > > Then I would vote for no lets at the top level at all. > Right. I think I said that elsewhere already. Top-level forms don't enclose a scope, so they shouldn't overload the LET keyword. >> > >> In a pure functional language like Haskell you would need to be in the > IO monad to write a REPL loop. > > > > > > BitC is not a pure functional language, and is not intended to be. > That's one of its strengths. > > The language can be the same, just the types of some terms are different. > I definitely have NOT bought in to the monads notion for BitC. I'm not satisfied with how monads and concurrency interact in tightly shared memory programs. I'm willing to discuss it. Just saying that I'm not convinced right now. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list bitc-dev@coyotos.org http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
