[Grace-core] Class syntax and type parameters

[Andrew P. Black]

On 14 Nov 2014, at 0:37, James Noble <kjx at ecs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:

> So, apropo of Michael's message about e.g. using "postcircumfix []";
> (we'll have to put that perlism into the spec, if we go this way)

That opens the whole kimono for asides on portmanteau words to enliven the spec.

I can envisage all sorts of Edward Lear quotes …  should keep us busy for months.

I do rather like the Tim+Michael idea of using the [ ] method to parameterize types.   But I really don’t want to use a different notation for parameterizing methods.
I’ve been trying to think of a way to have methods on methods, so we could apply the same trick there.

Following Kim’s concerns, I do think that we want to keep type declarations as distinct from defs.    Types have a dual existence: static things that can be reasoned about (using a “type system”)  as well as dynamic things that can act at runtime (in match statements, in dynamic checks, etc).    So long as we continue to believe in the first (which is probably forever), it will help to distinguish them syntactically, so that  they can be suitably restricted.

	Andrew