[m-dev.] 0.13 release: op/3 syntax

[Peter Schachte]

On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 02:10:15PM +1100, Ralph Becket wrote:
> Of course, it's even easier if you think of a textual name and stick
> with the usual convention...

Perhaps Mercury's designers should do the same?  The langauge is chock
full of extra little bits of syntax for this or that, all of which
make programming easier at the cost of complicating the language.  As
many as possible of these should be defined in the library.  The lack
of syntax extension and program transformation (cf term_expansion/2)
facilities in Mercury mean they all have to be wired into the
language.  Some examples:

	@ syntax in pattern matching
	named field declaration and accessor and setter syntax
	state variables
	DCGs

I'm sure there are more; I just found these by looking at the built-in
op list (a huge list!).  How much simpler would the language be if
these parts were part of the library instead of the langauge?

My point is the Mercury language designers feel no compunction about
introducing new operators.  Why deny the same flexibility to users?

-- 
Peter Schachte              Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a
schachte at cs.mu.OZ.AU        defeat, for it is momentary.
www.cs.mu.oz.au/~schachte/      -- Mahatma Gandhi 
Phone: +61 3 8344 1338      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at cs.mu.oz.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------