Return-Path: Delivery-Date: Received: from leopard.cs.byu.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP-6.5) outside ac.uk; Tue, 15 Mar 1994 16:34:28 +0000 Received: by leopard.cs.byu.edu (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA06269; Tue, 15 Mar 1994 09:12:40 -0700 Sender: info-hol-request@lal.cs.byu.edu Errors-To: info-hol-request@lal.cs.byu.edu Precedence: bulk Received: from dworshak.cs.uidaho.edu by leopard.cs.byu.edu with SMTP (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA06265; Tue, 15 Mar 1994 09:12:37 -0700 Received: from oberon.inmos.co.uk by dworshak.cs.uidaho.edu with SMTP (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA29193; Tue, 15 Mar 1994 08:09:28 -0800 Received: from frogland.inmos.co.uk by oberon.inmos.co.uk; Tue, 15 Mar 1994 15:56:12 GMT From: David Shepherd Message-Id: <15803.9403151555@frogland.inmos.co.uk> Subject: Re: HOL90 - Syntax To: slind@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Konrad Slind) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 15:55:02 +0000 (GMT) Cc: info-hol@cs.uidaho.edu (info-hol mailing list) In-Reply-To: <94Mar15.152423met.8111@sunbroy14.informatik.tu-muenchen.de> from "Konrad Slind" at Mar 15, 94 03:24:21 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 951 Konrad Slind has said: > Richard has made a comparison between a couple of fragments of code that > shows how ugly and uncompact the use of records can be. However, I don't > find either example to be terribly attractive. With the definition of > some simple infix operators, the code becomes more readable no matter > what the underlying types: > > infixr -->; > infix @; > fun (ty1 --> ty2) = mk_type{Tyop = "fun", Args = [ty1,ty2]}; > fun (tm1 @ tm2) = mk_comb{Rator = tm1, Rand = tm2}; > ... code deleted > > Perhaps "@" and "-->" should be in the base system. Slight problem as "@" is already in the base system as list append! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk tel: 0454-616616 x 625 inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq "I am not a nut --- I am a human being."