Surrendra,
No, there is no syntactic collision or ambiguity. This suggestion is
simply to 'align' the pattern-matching notation to Brad's new
proposal, for structures.
The existing pattern-matching grammar has a clause for structure
patterns that is directly analogous to the structure expressions that
Brad is now proposing. It used ordinary braces, because that was what
was in effect at the time that notation was designed, but it seems
logical that they should use '{} per the current proposal.
Nikhil
Surrendra Dudani wrote:
> Hi Nikhil,
> Is your suggestion because of a syntax collision/ambiguity with
> aggregate constructors?
> Surrendra
> At 03:39 PM 2/1/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> Brad,
>>
>> I think there is a another (small) consequence of your '{} proposal.
>>
>> In "8.4.1 Pattern Matching", we have defined structure patterns using
>> ordinary braces (the existing syntax for structure literals). To be
>> consistent with your new proposal, I would change that to also require
>> the tick in front of the braces.
>>
>> It would require fixes to the syntax in Syntax 8-4 (and Annex
>> A.6.7.1), and fixes to the various examples in 8.4.1.
>>
>> I think these are small fixes.
>>
>> Do you agree?
>>
>> Nikhil
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> Surrendra A. Dudani
> Synopsys, Inc.
> 377 Simarano Drive, Suite 300
> Marlboro, MA 01752
>
> Tel: 508-263-8072
> Fax: 508-263-8123
> email: Surrendra.Dudani@synopsys.com
> **********************************************
>
Received on Wed Feb 2 09:22:46 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 02 2005 - 09:22:52 PST