Hi, Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 08:35 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne: > foobar > do f &&& g > x > > Should the x now be an argument of foobar (as it is currently) or the > "do"? If it is not an argument of the "do", suddenly things get very > context-dependent. Computers are good at handling context-dependent > things, humans are quite bad at it.
What do you mean by “as it is currently”. Currently, this is a syntax error! (“parse error on input ‘do’”). Only with the proposed addition, it becomes an argument to foobar. And it is not hard to reason about this: "x" is lined up with the "do", so it is a sibling, not a child, in the AST. Hence, both are arguments to foobar. This is another good instance of how the (by me) beloved feature of “parenthesless arguments”, which so far is only available for the last argument of a function (using the “$” idiom), would now be possible for every argument of a function. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/ XMPP: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users