Re: Alternative syntax

Quoting Daniel Bonniot <[email protected]>:
> >>people to make. This might be were an alternate syntax comes in, if 
> >>really this is an important issue to some.
> >
> >This is understandable. I would worry that an alternate syntax would just
> >create more confusion. That is why I didn't suggest/implement an alternative 
> >one already--I even had a name for it: the "adequate" syntax.
> 
> I thought you would choose "Nicer" ;-)

That would be rude, to say "mine is better than yours" without justification.
The idea behind the "adequate" name was that it would not have as much of the
original syntax's sugar; just enough to "adequately" represent the abstract syntax.

> I there was a radically different syntax, it might not be so much 
> confusing. That would work if basically you can regonize in no time, and 
> for any part of the syntax, what style you are using. For instance, use 
> juxtaposition for application, let .. in, no return, variable name 
> before their type, ... Then they would appeal to mostly disjoint sets of 
> people. One syntax would give "a better Java", the other one "a better 
> ML" :-)

Yes, that would kind of describe the syntax I would go after. I am trying to
decide on a project to do for school, this is a possible one. Another one is to
try to create a simple Cecil interpreter or Cecil->JVM translator. This one
would be easier, no doubt.

- Brian




-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click