You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The old syntax makes it easier to declare series of explicit arguments, but does not allow for implict arguments, or for quantities to be specified. It does not allow multiple names to be bound to the same type either. Finally, it's a syntax form that is not seen anywhere else.
The new syntax allows for quantities to be written, and for implicit arguments to be defined. It mimics the syntax for record parameters/indices.
The question is then: Should we keep supporting the old bespoke syntax, or should we push toward using the more flexible syntax?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'd like to get the opinions of the community on the current parameter block syntax.
Currently, there are two syntaxes for parameter blocks:
This syntax has been replaced by
The old syntax makes it easier to declare series of explicit arguments, but does not allow for implict arguments, or for quantities to be specified. It does not allow multiple names to be bound to the same type either. Finally, it's a syntax form that is not seen anywhere else.
The new syntax allows for quantities to be written, and for implicit arguments to be defined. It mimics the syntax for record parameters/indices.
The question is then: Should we keep supporting the old bespoke syntax, or should we push toward using the more flexible syntax?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: