On 30/12/2011, Andriy Polischuk <quux...@gmail.com> wrote: > You're right, i should have written "ambiguities" instead. > That was not joke, just i somehow didn't notice Chris Smith answer.
Hm. I though at first that if backslash were the selection operator, then there must be programs of unclear semantics, but actually I can't find any. I'm sorry if my earlier message seemed unkind, by the way; it wasn't meant to be. > However, I think, there are some drawbacks in using dot for that in > comparison with qualified imports access. The latter is easier to > distinguish from composition by eye, because module-identifier is always one > word, starting from uppercase letter (which, moreover, in many editors is > highlighted differently). But in field access left operand is not always > atomic - it can be expression. > > Consider this example: > quux (y . (foo >.< bar).baz (f . g)) moo > It's not that easy to distinguish from > quux (y . (foo >.< bar) . baz (f . g)) moo Yeah, that's why I dislike dot as compose operator (^_~) > > Matthew Farkas-Dyck wrote >> >> Certainly not no conflicts: lambda expressions. >> > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Records-in-Haskell-tp4806095p5111428.html > Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > Backslash is a possibility then, it seems, but in my opinion breaks the principle of least surprise, i.e. "I can't believe it's not lambda!" Cheers, Matthew Farkas-Dyck _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users