Syntactic sugaring proposals for Rholang


The purpose of this page is to capture proposals of syntactic sugaring to benefit users of Rholang and to track discussion and decision-making related to these proposals.

How to use this page

All contributors welcome! Please do not remove content that you didn't author.




PLet. Proc2 ::= "let" [Binding] "in" "{" Proc3 "}";

BindingProcToPat. Binding ::= [Name] NameRemainder "<-" Proc3 ;

prototyped in PR #2055

see also RCHAIN-2641

The delimiter shown is ←; should it be =?


          (x, ret) => {ret!(x+1)},

...would be desugared to:

new lambda1 in {
contract lambda1(x, ret) = { ret! (x+1)} |

The desugared version is what one has to write anyway in order to use tools like ListOps.

The expressiveness of Rholang will be hugely improved.

"contract methods" (technically they are not methods but I have no idea how to call them (big grin))

contract channel.methodName(a, b, c) | channel.methodName!(P, Q, R)

will translate to:

contract channel(@"methodName", a, b, c) | channel!("methodName", P, Q, R)

which translates to:

for (@"methodName", a, b, c <= channel)

Could make the code more readable and also friendlier to OOP devs

contract varargs

contract myContract!(arg1, arg2, rest...) = { ... }

This would work nice with a tuple & list expansion
@myChannel ! (+(1,2,3)) |
@myChannel ! (+[4,5,6])

...would be desugared to

@myChannel !(1,2,3) |
@myChannel !(4,5,6)

Such a syntax feature would allow us to write multi-arity contracts easier.

Also we could write decorator contracts that receive a message with any structure, do some work and then forward the original message to a lower level

integrate registry dependency lookup with current functionality of new operator

  MakeMint(`rho:id:exunyijimapk7z43g3bbr69awqdz54kyroj9q43jgu3dh567fxsftx`) in ...

...would desugar to 
new MakeMintCh in {
rl!(`rho:id:exunyijimapk7z43g3bbr69awqdz54kyroj9q43jgu3dh567fxsftx`, *MakeMintCh) | 

for(@(_, MakeMint) <- MakeMintCh) {




Any nontrivial contract startw with setting up the dependencies like this and it looks pretty bad
rl!(`rho:id:exunyijimapk7z43g3bbr69awqdz54kyroj9q43jgu3dh567fxsftx`, *MakeMintCh) |
rl!(`rho:id:9dsr55z1js13x346yhhecx66ns486i3yqf6jafrd9p9hdrrbxjqmyu`, *LockboxCh) |
rl!(`rho:id:j6trahbxycumerwpr5qype7j43b7eqh8auebwsa9nn68if47gswh73`, *EitherCh) |
for(@(_, MakeMint) <- MakeMintCh; @(_, Lockbox) <- LockboxCh; @(_, Either) <- EitherCh) {



For this we will have to make the registry lookup as a special case of system processes but since it's used everywhere I don't see that as being a problem.

ch1 ! ("someMethod", ←ch2, ← ch3)

...would desugar to 

for( x ← ch2, y ← ch3) { 

   ch1 ! ( "someMethod", x , y )


ch1#method ! (arg1, arg2,...)

...would desugar to

ch1 !  ( "method", arg1, arg2,...)

RCHAIN-2641 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  RCHAIN-2644 - Getting issue details... STATUS

RCHAIN-2647 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  RCHAIN-2713 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Mike stay's Rholang sugaring scratch pad