[mercury-users] Records

[Juergen Stuber]

Robert Ernst Johann JESCHOFNIK <rejj at cat.cs.mu.OZ.AU> writes:
> 
> Dang.
> It is just that `^' irks me.. I instantly associate it with things like
> bitwise operations, pointers in Pascal, etc. 

Not to forget the existential quantification in Prolog.

> I just get the feeling that it is rather `ugly' syntax;
> 
> 	Field1 = X ^ field1,
> 
> doesn't look all that nice, and doesn't look like `field1' is a member of
> `X', 

I second that.  How about @?

    X @ field1

"X at field one" sounds nice and intuitive
(ok, maybe the order isn't right).


Even better would be a dot.  I know that it is planned to make
`.' the module qualifier eventually, but I think it would be
a better idea to junk that proposal, keep `:' as a module qualifier,
use `::' for types, modes etc. and depreciate `__':

- Nothing has happened on this front for two years (I think?),
  it doesn't seem important.
- I still have to use `:' as a module qualifier for infix ops,
  `.' is not implemented.
- The change would eventually break existing software.
- It offers very little benefit.
- Haskell uses `::' for type declarations.
- `:' as a module qualifier is Prolog tradition :-)

Cheers

Jürgen

-- 
Jürgen Stuber <juergen at mpi-sb.mpg.de>
http://www.mpi-sb.mpg.de/~juergen/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-users mailing list
post:  mercury-users at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-users at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-users-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-users-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------