Syntax Again

[Fredrik Öhrström]

Somehow I think that no official looking body has explicitly rejected
the BGGA syntax. It has more sort of been left in limbo.

Personally I consider it important to easily discern between a Type and
a piece of code.
Thus the creation of a closure is excellent in the BGGA proposal, and it
looks like
a bit of code, which is perfect since an important purpose of BGGA is
control abstraction.

However the type holding on to the closure also looks like a piece of
code, this is not so good.
Integers (1234) do not look like "int". The closure type need not look
like the actual closure
creation body.

//Fredrik

Vladimir Kirichenko skrev:
> Hi, All
>
> I have a question: why BGGA 0.5 syntax was rejected in favor of
> CLang-like syntax that causes so lots of problems?
>
> It much more elegant for function type definition
>
> #(#int(String)(throws IOException)) (String)(throws SQLException)
>
> vs
>
> {String => {String => int throws IOException} throws SQLException}
>
> The second one much more elegant and does not introduce #.
>
>