[Grace-core] Type syntax

[Kim Bruce]

Request for clarification to actual problem:

Is the main issue expressions like {a:Number -> a*a) which could be interpreted as an anonymous function or a type with method a with type Number -> a*a?
(Admittedly we wouldn't have a*a as a type, but you get the idea.)
Are there other ambiguities we are trying to avoid?  If it is just the one, then we could write anonymous functions using => rather than ->, but I suspect there are more issues.

I'd like to try to come up with a simpler solution than most of those proposed so far, but don't want to overlook an existing problem.

Kim



On Feb 6, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Andrew P. Black <apblack at ownmail.net> wrote:

> I made some additions to the wiki page:
> 
> https://projects.cecs.pdx.edu:8443/~black/NewOOL/index.cgi/wiki/RevisedTypeSyntax
> 
> I’m thoroughly confused at all of the options.  None seems very clean.  Generic really do make everything much more confusing.   Maybve we should just use method syntax for type parameters?
> 
> 	Andrew
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Grace-core mailing list
> Grace-core at cecs.pdx.edu
> https://mailhost.cecs.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/grace-core