Ruby is bound to me more widespread than ML in the next few months, thus more people will be exposed to this kind of syntax. My feeling is that at this point, if a new syntax is both easier to learn and more flexible, you should make the switch (before I start to learn the first one I mean :-)
X. On 3/3/06, David Baelde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi list, > > I just put down on the wiki a few ideas I have been considering about > liquidsoap's scripts syntax: > http://savonet.sourceforge.net/wiki/LiqScript > > Some of you heard that already, I'd like to propose a simpler syntax, > say Ruby-like. The problem is that proposing two syntax is not enough, > type checking needs to be changed a bit for having a real Ruby-like > feel -- this is about the difference between the expression f() in ML > and Ruby. One might also think about a nicer display of types, for > those who don't know arrows, e.g int -> ~a:float -> source could > become source(int,a=float) or (int,a=float) -> source -- any advice > here ? > > Instead of having multiple cases at several points of the code, I > could also definitely switch to that new syntax, removing the old > OCaml-like one. The point is that if everything goes well, the > Ruby-like would probably become the only effectively used syntax. And > we don't have (yet) so many scripts to change, so backward > compatibility doesn't matter. > > Any advice ? > -- > David > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting > language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live > webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding > territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642 > _______________________________________________ > Savonet-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-users >
