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.<div>
<br></div><div>-Edward<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Ian Lynagh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ian@well-typed.com" target="_blank">ian@well-typed.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 07:26:16PM -0500, Edward Kmett wrote:<br>
> If space sensitivity or () disambiguation is being used on !, could one of<br>
> these also be permitted on ~ to permit it as a valid infix term-level<br>
> operator?<br>
<br>
</div>I don't think there's any reason ~ couldn't be an operator, defined with<br>
the<br>
(~) x y = ...<br>
syntax.<br>
<br>
Allowing it to be defined with infix syntax would be a little trickier.<br>
<br>
<br>
Hmm, I've just realised that if we decide to make !_ and !foo lexemes,<br>
then we'd also want !(+) to be a lexeme, which presumably means we'd<br>
want (+) to be a single lexeme too (and also `foo`, for consistency).<br>
But I don't think making that change would be problematic.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
Ian<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-prime mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-prime@haskell.org">Haskell-prime@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>