[GHC] #4430: Better support for resolving infix expressions in template haskell

[GHC]

#4430: Better support for resolving infix expressions in template haskell
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
    Reporter:  reinerp           |        Owner:  igloo       
        Type:  feature request   |       Status:  patch       
    Priority:  normal            |    Milestone:  7.4.1       
   Component:  Template Haskell  |      Version:  6.12.3      
    Keywords:                    |     Testcase:              
   Blockedby:                    |   Difficulty:              
          Os:  Unknown/Multiple  |     Blocking:              
Architecture:  Unknown/Multiple  |      Failure:  None/Unknown
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------

Comment(by simonpj):

 Looks good to me.

  * I think the name "`UnresolvedInfixE`" is rather long and clunky.  I'd
 be inclined to say "`UInfixE`" and explain the terminology in the comment.
 What do you think?

  * I like the long comment in `TH.hs`, but I think it'd be better in
 `TH/Syntax.hs` where the constructors are declared.  Also could you use
 the `Note [blah]` format described here
 [http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/CodingStyle]?

  * In that comment you say "This special handling for sections is the
 exception to the previous point".  I don't understand this comment.  The
 use of `InfixE` in sections is not reassociated, just like any other use
 of `InfixE`.  Seems fine to me!

  * In `Convert.cvtOpAppP` could you add a comment explaining ''why'' the
 chain must be re-associated. It's because GHC's renamer expects to see
 operator applications in a particular form; better say what that is.  Are
 you sere that `cvtOpAppP` puts an arbitrary tree into a list form?  I have
 not looked very carefully but I'm not sure it does.

 Thanks

 Simon

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4430#comment:14>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler