the fact that its perilously close to looking like *1 typo* away from a parser error about record syntax makes me *-1000* now
thanks for pointing this out! On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com> wrote: > Didn't they already say they disliked record syntax for exactly that > reason? > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 1:23 PM, David Feuer <david.fe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What makes >> >> f do{x} do{y} >> >> any harder to read than similar record syntax? >> >> f Foo{foo=3} Foo{foo=4} >> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Carter Schonwald >> <carter.schonw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > agreed -1, >> > ambiguity is bad for humans, not just parsers. >> > >> > perhaps most damningly, >> >> >> >> >> >> f do{ x } do { y } >> > >> > >> > is just reallly really weird/confusing to me, and as the proposal itself >> > says at the end as the cons: >> > >> > >> >> It's harder to read than the alternative. >> >> >> >> Creating a language extension to get rid of a single character is >> overkill >> >> and unnecessary. >> >> >> >> You can already get rid of the $ by just adding parentheses. >> > >> > which kinda kills any benefit in my mind. thats a HUGE complexity vs >> > alternative ratio. I'm all in favor of doing engineering work to >> *improve* >> > our parser error messages and suggestions, but not stuff that >> complicates >> > parsing for humans as well as machines >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Evan Laforge <qdun...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Bardur Arantsson < >> s...@scientician.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> > On 07/04/2016 12:31 PM, Akio Takano wrote: >> >> >> Hi glasgow-haskell-users, >> >> >> >> >> >> I have written a wiki page about a proposed extension called >> >> >> ArgumentDo. It's a small syntactic extension that allows "do" >> >> >> expressions, lambdas and a few other kinds of expressions to be used >> >> >> as function arguments, without parentheses. >> >> >> >> >> >> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ArgumentDo >> >> >> >> >> >> Any feedback is appreciated. In particular, since the idea has >> >> >> received mixed support (see the "Discussion" section on the wiki >> >> >> page), I'd like to make sure that there is enough support for this >> >> >> feature to justify an implementation in GHC. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > -1 >> >> > >> >> > Reasons have already been given in previous threads on this. However, >> >> > I'd point especially to the fact that people don't *agree* that this >> is >> >> > more readable as a very strong point against -- regardless of whether >> >> > any one individual thinks it's more readable or not. The point is the >> >> > there seems to be a lot of disagreement -- that indicates to me that >> >> > this cannot by definition be a "clear win"[1]. Disclosure: I >> personally >> >> > find it less readable because of the implicitness. Implicitness which >> >> > has a non-trivial probability of affecting semantics is bad in my >> book. >> >> > Frankly, if it came to it, I'd rather just remove $ and deal with the >> >> > parentheses. >> >> >> >> I'm -1 because I think there are already too many styles. So I don't >> >> agree with the general sentiment that the parser should accept lots of >> >> stuff and to rely on style guides to specify something, because in >> >> practice everyone has their own style guide. >> >> >> >> I trained myself to see juxtaposition as highest precedence (which >> >> newcomers still struggle over) and it's confusing to see juxtaposition >> >> that has higher precedence because one of them is a keyword. In the >> >> same way I'm confused by 'f a { b = c }', but it's too late to change >> >> that one. I suppose this is already on the wiki page in the "cons" >> >> section. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list >> >> Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org >> >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list >> > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org >> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list >> Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users >> > > > > -- > brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine > associates > allber...@gmail.com > ballb...@sinenomine.net > unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad > http://sinenomine.net >
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users