Re: Map literal

I think you're overlooking the parse-time shape checking, Isiah, which in the new world order of type inference and checking seems like a necessity to me. While I fully appreciate that Tab's solution involves the least number of specification additions, I still would rather write this without the

Re: Map literal

With that syntax, I'm not even sure it's necessary. It's not much more concise than a list of 2-tuples. Don't quite see the benefit the other than a few characters. On Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 22:22 Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Alexander Jones

Re: Map literal

I was actually talking about the syntax itself. I'd be fine with less verbose, extensible Map semantics. On Sun, Nov 29, 2015, 12:14 Alexander Jones wrote: > I think you're overlooking the parse-time shape checking, Isiah, which in > the new world order of type inference and

Re: Map literal

I like the idea of the #{} syntax working without a required type. But here's my opinions: 1. It should automatically [[Construct]]. I don't see any other reason why it shouldn't. 2. I don't like the idea of an `->` operator which does that. Also, is `a -> b -> c` equivalent to `[a, b, c]` or