David House wrote:
On 17/08/06, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Literal highlighting in the editor would make it clear that x-2 ===
x (-2). I think a basic issue is that at the moment it is strange
that non-negative numbers can be specified as literals but negative
numbers can't - they can only get in through the "back door" of
evaluation - which just doesn't seem right.
You also can't specify string literals: they're sugar for
'a':'b':'c':[]. You seem to be arguing that syntactic sugar, and by
extension, a small core language, is bad.
All I'm saying is that given a type, either all the inhabitants should have
a literal form or none of them should, because otherwise the availability of
literals skews one's relationship to the inhabitants.
Ie the lack of negative literals tells me that I should think of negative
integers as being "derived" from positive integers via negation, whereas the
declaration
data Integer = ... | -1 | 0 | 1 | ...
tells me that the negative and positive integers are on an equal footing.
Ie the language is sending out a "mixed message" about the integers, which
is confusing.
Regards, Brian.
--
Logic empowers us and Love gives us purpose.
Yet still phantoms restless for eras long past,
congealed in the present in unthought forms,
strive mightily unseen to destroy us.
http://www.metamilk.com
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
