I'd prefer "idiom brackets" over something do-ish for Applicatives. Conor McBride's SHE already supports them, if you're willing to use a custom preprocessor.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Joe Fredette <jfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe