<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Will Ness <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:will_n48@yahoo.com">will_n48@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Tom Tobin <korpios <at> <a href="http://korpios.com" target="_blank">korpios.com</a>> writes:<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Will Ness <will_n48 <at> <a href="http://yahoo.com" target="_blank">yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > This syntax already exists. The '`' symbol is non-collating already, so<br>
> > using it for symbol chars doesn't change anything (it's not that it<br>
> > can be a part of some name, right?). To turn an infix op into an infix op<br>
> > is an id operation, made illegal artificially at the scan phase after a<br>
> > successful lex (or whatever).<br>
><br>
> If I've accidentally applied syntax meant for a prefix operator to an<br>
> infix operator, *I want the compiler to tell me*, and not to silently<br>
> accept my mistake.<br>
<br>
</div>You don't apply sytax, you write it.<br>
<br>
You think of functions, where domain matters (for purists?). In syntax only the<br>
result matter, does it read? Does it have an intended meaning?<br>
<br>
How is it a mistake if it expresses what I intended?<br>
<br>
Both 3 `-` 2 and curry fst `foldl` 0 are exactly the same - expressions with<br>
infix operator, read in the same way, interpreted in the same way. In the first<br>
case the backticks are made superfluous by Haskell reader for our convinience;<br>
but they shouldn't be made illegal. Why should they be? I truly don't<br>
understand the resistance to this idea. :)<br></blockquote><div><br>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.<br>
<br>Jason<br></div></div>