Hi,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Simon Marlow
Ok. So I counter-propose that we deal with pattern bindings like this:
The static semantics of a pattern binding are given by the following translation. A binding 'p = e' has the same meaning as the set of bindings
z = e x1 = case z of { p -> x1 } ... xn = case z of { p -> xn }
where z is fresh, and x1..xn are the variables of the pattern p.
For bang patterns, I think it suffices to say that a bang at the top level of p is carried to the binding for z, and then separately define what banged variable bindings mean (i.e. add appropriate seqs).
Does anyone see any problems with this?
Seems good to me.
Oh, and I also propose to use the terminology "variable binding" instead of "simple pattern binding", which is currently used inconsistently in the report (see section 4.4.3.2).
This also makes sense. Perhaps, we should use "strict variable binding" instead of "banged variable binding" as well? -Iavor