On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Will Ness <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Tobin <korpios <at> korpios.com> writes: > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Will Ness <will_n48 <at> yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > This syntax already exists. The '`' symbol is non-collating already, so > > > using it for symbol chars doesn't change anything (it's not that it > > > can be a part of some name, right?). To turn an infix op into an infix > op > > > is an id operation, made illegal artificially at the scan phase after a > > > successful lex (or whatever). > > > > If I've accidentally applied syntax meant for a prefix operator to an > > infix operator, *I want the compiler to tell me*, and not to silently > > accept my mistake. > > You don't apply sytax, you write it. > > You think of functions, where domain matters (for purists?). In syntax only > the > result matter, does it read? Does it have an intended meaning? > > How is it a mistake if it expresses what I intended? > > Both 3 `-` 2 and curry fst `foldl` 0 are exactly the same - expressions > with > infix operator, read in the same way, interpreted in the same way. In the > first > case the backticks are made superfluous by Haskell reader for our > convinience; > but they shouldn't be made illegal. Why should they be? I truly don't > understand the resistance to this idea. :) > Don't you mean 3 `(-)` 2? I'm pretty sure -, without the parens is infix and (-) is prefix. So it seems to me that you need the brackets for this to be consistent. Jason
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
