ATS2 syntax: are `0` and `@` (zero and at‑sign) exchangeable?

Google Group
1

I wanted to check the existence of a keyword in ATS, and checked the lexer
source for this. Prior to that, I often noticed some t0ype (with a zero)
written in misc samples on the web, which seems close in form to t@ype
(with an at‑sign). In ATS2 lexer source, I saw similar things like
absviewt0ype, abst0ype and so on, instead of absviewt@ype, abst@ype
and so on.

This make me suspect the zero is an alternative another way to write the
at‑sign.

Is that it?

2

Hi all,On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Alex Chen ajc...@gmail.com wrote:

Since t0ype (and t0p) is equivalent to t@ype, does it apply to abst@ype

BTW, I like “t@ype” rather than “t0ype”.
The “t@ype” is easy for me to notice.

Thank’s,
Kiwamu Okabe at METASEPI DESIGN

3

I agree with you too that @ is easier to see than 0. But if equivalency is
offered, then I prefer it to be consistent among all *t@ype. If not, I
prefer to remove the equivalency. This would make the code easier to read
later on, because it’s easier to remember the language syntax.

Thanks,
– AlexOn Tuesday, August 12, 2014 12:39:31 AM UTC-7, Kiwamu Okabe wrote:

Hi all,

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Alex Chen <ajc...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote:

Since t0ype (and t0p) is equivalent to t@ype, does it apply to abst@ype

BTW, I like “t@ype” rather than “t0ype”.
The “t@ype” is easy for me to notice.

Thank’s,

Kiwamu Okabe at METASEPI DESIGN

4

Yes.

t0ype is introduced as an alpha-numeric alternative to t@ype.

Is it also true for the cases where @ would appear as a prefix, I mean as
in @[ ? I saw a strange symbol today, which was 0u (zero‑u), looking
invalid at first sight.

5

Since t0ype (and t0p) is equivalent to t@ype, does it apply to abst@ype
where abst0ype would be equivalent to it? I don’t see it in the ATS libs,
but it would be nice to keep it consistent in the language?

Thanks,
– Alex

6

Yes.

t0ype is introduced as an alpha-numeric alternative to t@ype.On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:50:52 PM UTC-4, Yannick Duchêne wrote:

I wanted to check the existence of a keyword in ATS, and checked the lexer
source for this. Prior to that, I often noticed some t0ype (with a zero)
written in misc samples on the web, which seems close in form to t@ype
(with an at‑sign). In ATS2 lexer source, I saw similar things like
absviewt0ype, abst0ype and so on, instead of absviewt@ype, abst@ype
and so on.

This make me suspect the zero is an alternative another way to write the
at‑sign.

Is that it?

7

@[…] can not be changed into 0[…].

1u is for unsigned integer 1. It is C-syntax.On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 2:55:37 PM UTC-4, Yannick Duchêne wrote:

Le mercredi 6 août 2014 18:55:06 UTC+2, gmhwxi a écrit :

Yes.

t0ype is introduced as an alpha-numeric alternative to t@ype.

Is it also true for the cases where @ would appear as a prefix, I mean as
in @[ ? I saw a strange symbol today, which was 0u (zero‑u), looking
invalid at first sight.

8

Hi Alex,On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Alex Chen ajc...@gmail.com wrote:

I agree with you too that @ is easier to see than 0. But if equivalency is
offered, then I prefer it to be consistent among all *t@ype. If not, I
prefer to remove the equivalency. This would make the code easier to read
later on, because it’s easier to remember the language syntax.

Ah. I think I understand it.
I’m so happy, if *t0ype is removed. Because it’s a double standard.

However, this is my opinion, and not ATS developer’s.
And my friends (in Japan) dis-like “t@ype” syntax.
They say “This is too much strange!”

Thank’s,
Kiwamu Okabe at METASEPI DESIGN