the dreaded offside rule
igloo at earth.li
Thu Mar 9 09:33:08 EST 2006
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:27:48PM +0100, Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
> It is with some hesitation that I want to bring up another point, in
> which Haskell' could be an improvement above Haskell: the offside rule.
This is something I would have brought up too, except I don't think I'll
have time to look into it properly in the advertised timescale.
I conjecture that with a suitable set of bracketing keywords and symbols
(if/then, let/in, [/], ...) the "parse error => close implicit block"
rule could be dropped without significantly altering the set of
acceptable programs (just rejecting programs that people really oughtn't
be writing anyway (IMNSHO), like Lennart's examples).
Things are slightly complicated by things like [ ... | ... ] and "let"
not always being closed by "in" (so you just have to have it implicitly
closed when you want to insert a ; in a "do" block), but I haven't
thought of anything that'll actually break it. Then again, I haven't
thought too hard about it or tried it out yet.
I'm not sure how much easier this will make it to explain the rule to
people - if you just explain the gist using the simple examples of
bracketing, like if/then, then I think it would be significantly
simpler, but if you'd want to explain all the niggly details then it
might end up also being too complex.
The main advantage is it would make layout a separate pass between
lexical analysis and parsing.
More information about the Haskell-prime