Composition operator [was: Re: Records in Haskell]
strake888 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 14 05:23:49 CET 2012
Actually, we don't need symbols at all, nor all these damned letters.
The set of valid characters in an identifier can be of size 2: one
each upper- and lower-case, e.g. [Pp].
For example, to define const function:
p :: P (p (P pp p));
p pp _ = pp;
where P is function type.
If we drop all the symbols, and all numerals but , we could have a
6-bit character set!
On 12/01/2012, Donn Cave <donn at avvanta.com> wrote:
>> Quoth Brandon Allbery <allbery.b at gmail.com>,
>> Seems obvious to me: on the one hand, there should be a plain-ASCII
>> version of any Unicode symbol; on the other, the ASCII version has
>> shortcomings the Unicode one doesn't (namely the existing conflict between
>> use as composition and use as module and now record qualifier). So, the
>> Unicode one requires support but avoids weird parse issues.
> OK. To me, the first hand is all you need - if there should be a
> plain-ASCII version of any Unicode symbol anyway, then you can avoid
> some trouble by just recognizing that you don't need Unicode symbols
> (let alone with different parsing rules.)
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users