## digitalmars.D - [OT] Language design question

- Robert Fraser (40/40) May 26 2009 Hey all,
- Robert Fraser (3/4) May 26 2009 And don't forget to take your fun fun (a banger in the mouth if you get
- Ary Borenszweig (7/60) May 28 2009 I like the 'x(y, z) syntax because its short. Too much fun is not fun. :...

Hey all, Without revealing too much I'm currently working on a programming language for a research project (it's implemented in D, of course!). I'm trying to figure out a good syntax for type annotations. I realized that under my current scheme the "fun" keyword in my language now serves three purposes: - syntax sugar for declaring a function - a type annotation for a function - introducing a literal function/lambda So a lazy evaluation/application could be written something like: fun fun $a() lazyApply(fun $a($b) f, $b x) => fun $a() => f(x); Where the first "fun" starts a function declaration, the next two indicate function types, and the last one indicates a lambda expression. This, if you'll forgive the pun, might not be so fun. Of course, since the language supports type inference, it could be written more simply as one of: fun lazyApply(f, x) => fun() => f(x); fun lazyApply(f, x) => f (x); (All are equavalent to the D2 closure function: T delegate() lazyApply(t, U)(T delegate(U) f, U x) { return T() { return f(x); } } ) What do you think of this? Do I need to find a different syntax? Some other possible syntaxes I thought of (where x, y, and z are types) {y, z -> x} {(y, z) -> x} 'x(y, z) \x(y, z) (Might be confusing since \ introduces lambda expressions in other languages) Which would make the above monstrosity look like: fun {-> $a} lazyApply({$b -> $a} f, $b x) => fun {-> $a} => f(x); fun {() -> $a} lazyApply({($b) -> $a} f, $b x) => fun {() -> $a} => f(x); fun '$a() lazyApply('$a($b) f, $b x) => fun '$a() => f(x); fun \$a() lazyApply(\$a($b) f, $b x) => fun \$a() => f(x); The short versions would remain the same in all cases: fun lazyApply(f, x) => fun() => f(x); fun lazyApply(f, x) => f (x); Any thoughts/suggestions? Thanks, Robert

May 26 2009

Robert Fraser wrote:fun fun $a() lazyApply(fun $a($b) f, $b x) => fun $a() => f(x);And don't forget to take your fun fun (a banger in the mouth if you get the reference :-)).

May 26 2009

Robert Fraser wrote:Hey all, Without revealing too much I'm currently working on a programming language for a research project (it's implemented in D, of course!). I'm trying to figure out a good syntax for type annotations. I realized that under my current scheme the "fun" keyword in my language now serves three purposes: - syntax sugar for declaring a function - a type annotation for a function - introducing a literal function/lambda So a lazy evaluation/application could be written something like: fun fun $a() lazyApply(fun $a($b) f, $b x) => fun $a() => f(x); Where the first "fun" starts a function declaration, the next two indicate function types, and the last one indicates a lambda expression. This, if you'll forgive the pun, might not be so fun. Of course, since the language supports type inference, it could be written more simply as one of: fun lazyApply(f, x) => fun() => f(x); fun lazyApply(f, x) => f (x); (All are equavalent to the D2 closure function: T delegate() lazyApply(t, U)(T delegate(U) f, U x) { return T() { return f(x); } } ) What do you think of this? Do I need to find a different syntax? Some other possible syntaxes I thought of (where x, y, and z are types) {y, z -> x} {(y, z) -> x} 'x(y, z) \x(y, z) (Might be confusing since \ introduces lambda expressions in other languages) Which would make the above monstrosity look like: fun {-> $a} lazyApply({$b -> $a} f, $b x) => fun {-> $a} => f(x); fun {() -> $a} lazyApply({($b) -> $a} f, $b x) => fun {() -> $a} => f(x); fun '$a() lazyApply('$a($b) f, $b x) => fun '$a() => f(x); fun \$a() lazyApply(\$a($b) f, $b x) => fun \$a() => f(x); The short versions would remain the same in all cases: fun lazyApply(f, x) => fun() => f(x); fun lazyApply(f, x) => f (x); Any thoughts/suggestions?I like the 'x(y, z) syntax because its short. Too much fun is not fun. :-P Do you need an extra symbol to denote a function type? Can't you just write: fun $a() lazyApply($a($b) f, $b x) => fun $a() => f(x); Do you have ambiguities with that? I don't know your language, but if you only use function types when declaring a type, then I think there's no problem.

May 28 2009