If only @ had a generally accepted meaning in human communication that would be relevant to a general programming and data description language...
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Granted, but stuff’s gotta be attributed somehow.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
@ without the <>
-
Attributes without enclosing punctuation have a scaling problem with destructuring definitions, uncurried functions, etc. @ public x:int @ named ("X Coordinate) x:int @ named ("Coordinates) (x,y):pair= @ public f(x:int) @ pure (y:int) @ :int = 123 @ a b (c) (d) @ e = f ???
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I never really liked Type after Name. I always tend to read code as "This is a Type named Name" rather than "Name is a Type". That might be my experience in OOP talking though, where the type is far more important than the name of the variable.
-
I've mostly seen x:int in places where the type syntax was added afterwards or was optional
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Why attributes at all vs another mechanism?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I chose n.3 (square brackets) because it's easier on the eyes, probably because it has one less symbol in it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don’t do public
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.