Correction, that should have been:
fun foldl f : (('b * 'a) -> 'b) init : 'b ls : ('a list) = ...
...for all five of you who care. :-)
Daniel
1. Without spaces
2. Without parens
For example:
String=>Unit
(String, Int)=>Unit
I think this makes it a little cleaner without taking up too much space. Also, I think it makes type annotations a bit easier to read. For example:
val foo: String=>Unit = ...
vs.
val foo: String => Unit = ...
The extra spaces require a little more effort to parse (at least to my eye). Rather than relying on spacing to delineate value, type and expression, I have to actually look at "=>" vs "=", symbols which have comparatively little visual distinction.
As a matter of interest, when programming Haskell or SML, I do prefer the spaces syntax:
-- Haskell
foldl :: (b -> a -> b) -> b -> List a -> b
(* SML *)
fun foldl f : (('b, 'a) -> 'b) init : 'b ls : ('a list) = ...
I'm not quite sure why I find the spaces better in Haskell/SML and not in Scala, but there it is.
Daniel
Bill Venners-3 wrote:
Hi All,
I wanted to take the community's temperature on how they prefer to see
function types formatted. I have three questions.
1. Do you want spaces around the => or not? Here is with spaces:
(String, Int) => Unit
Here is without:
(String, Int)=>Unit
2. If a type has arity 1, do you want parens around it or not? Here it
is with parens:
(String) => Unit
Here it is without:
String => Unit
3. Lastly, anything else you like to see?
Thanks.
Bill
----
Bill Venners
Artima, Inc.
http://www.artima.com
