The only issue I would have with such a notation is not being able to
visually tell the difference between a monadic function (say, without
a explicit type sig, which is how I write parsers), and an applicative
one.
I'd prefer something like
foo = app
blah blah
If only for some visual distinction, I think it also resolves the "do
knowing about types" issue.
Plus, this is a good case for some kind of custom-do syntax facility.
So we could make do syntax for everything. :)
/Joe
On Oct 9, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Robert Atkey wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 18:06 +0100, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
This leads us to the bikeshed topic: what's the concrete syntax?
I implemented a simple Camlp4 syntax extension for Ocaml to do this. I
chose the syntax:
applicatively
let x = foo
let y = bar
in <pure stuff>
I quite like the word "applicatively".
Your overloading suggestion sounds to me like it would require the
desugaring process to know something about types, but I'm not sure.
Bob
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
