Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
3 points by davidx 4886 days ago | link | parent

Maybe

  (<< a b c : x y z) => (a b c (x y z))
  (>> a b c : x y z) => (x y z (a b c))
then? Still looks slightly like less-than/greater-than, but this gives a visual cue for data direction, and avoids needing to care about relative precedence.


1 point by rocketnia 4885 days ago | link

Reminds me a bit of monads, bit shifting, and strict comparison. >.>; I guess maybe there's not an unimpeachable choice here. :-p

I was thinking along the lines of putting them in the same syntax:

  (// a b c :
    x y z ! i j k)
  =>
  (a b c (i j k (x y z)))
Then again, yours does allow for this:

  (<< a b c :
    >> x y z : i j k)

-----

1 point by zck 4884 days ago | link

Fyi, your other comment on this thread (http://arclanguage.org/item?id=14886) is dead. It was obviously a valid post, but it apparently tripped the detector.

-----

1 point by rocketnia 4884 days ago | link

I didn't see it while it was alive, so I'm curious. ^_^

-----

1 point by akkartik 4884 days ago | link

Perhaps it was deliberately deleted? I can resuscitate it if not.

-----

1 point by davidx 4883 days ago | link

I think that was a duplicate that I deleted.

-----