Slides from LASER 2012

[Timon Gehr]

On 09/20/2012 06:55 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Timon Gehr:
>
>> Formalising it is not hard,
>
> I am not sure of this, given the amount of special cases it already has.
>

Which special cases do you refer to?

>
>> The number of lines equals the Haskell example in this case.
>> Interestingly, you have opened an enhancement request on this and then
>> argued against it.
>
> I am not against it, it's a nice syntax. But I think there are more
> useful things to change/add, like syntax to destructure tuples, that I
> need every 20 lines of code or so. When you put out many suggestions, I
> think it's important to specify what you think is more important and
> what's less important.
>

Well, => for functions is a trivial parser change, and tuple
destructuring is already implemented. (but not pulled)

>
>> There is no 'right' way.
>
> So we don't agree even on what we have to agree :-)

I agree.

>
> And having multiple correct ways to do something is often bad :-(
>

Then we're fine. These are two notations for doing it the same way.