ekmett at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 17:24:49 CET 2013
On the topic of liberalizing operators that are currently only used in
patterns, another one that would be amazing to have as a valid term (or
type operator) is @ using similar () tricks. 1 character operator names are
in dreadful short supply and really help make nice DSLs.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Ian Lynagh <ian at well-typed.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 07:26:16PM -0500, Edward Kmett wrote:
> > If space sensitivity or () disambiguation is being used on !, could one
> > these also be permitted on ~ to permit it as a valid infix term-level
> > operator?
> I don't think there's any reason ~ couldn't be an operator, defined with
> (~) x y = ...
> Allowing it to be defined with infix syntax would be a little trickier.
> Hmm, I've just realised that if we decide to make !_ and !foo lexemes,
> then we'd also want !(+) to be a lexeme, which presumably means we'd
> want (+) to be a single lexeme too (and also `foo`, for consistency).
> But I don't think making that change would be problematic.
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-prime