On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 01:32:14PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: >The | notation is mentioned in S012:1029, by the way. Obviously you
: >still haven't quite memorized all the synopses. :-)
:
: Actually, I was very well aware of that fact.
Oops, didn't realize you were suggesting a semantic change to the default,
not just a syntactic addition.
: The above was a
: proposal for changing S12, for the express purpose of making the
: syntax for unordered composition at run-time look like the syntax for
: unordered composition at compile-time as much as possible (by the
: principle of least surprise). Since this would remove the current
: syntax for doing ordered composition at runtime, and given that
: ordered composition at runtime is not something we want to lose, I was
: also proposing a replacement syntax for it. So instead of
:
: role R does A does B does C { ... } # unordered composition
: $x does A does B does C; # ordered composition
: $y does A | B | C; # unordered composition
:
: I'd like to see it done something like:
:
: role R does A does B does C { ... } # unordered composition
: $x does A & does B & does C; # ordered composition
: $y does A does B does C; # unordered composition
:
: Same capabilities, but less cognitive dissonance.
Gotcha. Sorry my brain was in sidewayser than usual.
: Mind you, I don't really care what syntax gets used for ordered
: composition; just as long as it isn't "does A does B does C".
I suspect ordered composition is going to be rare enough that we can
simply dehuffmanize it to
$x does A;
$x does B;
$x does C;
Larry
