Re: [pure-lang-users] Proposed syntax changes

[Eddie R. <er...@bm...>]

On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 14:08 +0200, Albert Graef wrote:
> Albert Graef wrote:
> > - The discussion I had with Libor about how to implement a sequencing 
> > operator ("first x, then y") also kept me thinking, because the solution 
> > I proposed there is not tail-recursive. To do this in a proper way, we'd 
> > need a built-in sequencing operator (special form). While it's not 
> > strictly needed, it's much more convenient than having to write 'y when 
> > _ = x end' all the time.
> 
> This is now implemented as well. ($$ operator)
> 
> I'm basically through with my 0.5 TODO list now (Windows port 
> notwithstanding; I can hopefully take a look at that later today). So if 
> anyone is still listening, it would be nice if you could take the latest 
> svn for a test drive. ;-)
> 
> I also vaguely recall that someone volunteered to write a little test 
> module for math.pure, or did I just dream that up? :)

Was that me? I'll see what I can do ASAP.

e.r.