On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>wrote:
> | Indeed, I wished the 0-ary case would be more alike to the unary and > | binary case, cf. > | > | return f0 > | f1 <$> a1 > | f2 <$> a1 <*> a2 > | > | What is needed is a nice syntax for "idiom brackets". > > Indeed. I'm quite open to adding idiom brackets to GHC, if everyone can > agree on their syntax, and someone would like to offer a patch. > > Something like > (| f a1 a2 |) > The last time I suggested this (on IRC), the first question someone asked was: How should nested uses of applicative work with idiom brackets? I think this question actually comes in two flavors: * Can you nest the brackets themselves? * How deeply do you traverse the expression to insert the applicative combinators? Also, if anyone wants to look at prior art first, Idris supports applicative brackets. Jason
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe