Ralf Hemmecke <r...@hemmecke.de> writes: | is there any hope for getting rid of these )abbrev lines in the near future?
The abbreviations are a solution to the problem that at some point in the type checking process, the compiler needs to know when a certain symbol designates a constructor and what kind of constructor (category, domain, package). This is required especially in uniform notation for constructors and "ordinary" functions. Whether the length is appropriate is a different matter (I believe it is too restrictive). It certainly is the case that being able to freely substitute a shorter alias for a very long constructor name is useful especially in interactive uses. So, the question becomes how to manage that? The abbreviation mechanism is an answer to that. PS: certain systems (e.g. Haskell and many ML-style languages) have naming conventions saying that a constructor must start with a capital letter and that is built into the grammar. Last time I looked at this, it did not appear obvious that is a superior convention. It makes certain things easier at the expense of less flexibility and less expressiveness in the surface syntax. -- Gaby ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
