2009/11/18 Twan van Laarhoven <twa...@gmail.com>: > > The TDNR proposal really tries to do two separate things: > > 1. Record syntax for function application. > The proposal is to tread "x.f" or a variation thereof the same as "(f x)" > > 2. Type directed name lookup. > The proposal is to look up overloaded names based on the type of the > first function argument. > > Why can't these be considered separately? Is there a good reason for not > using TDNR in normal function applications? The only argument I can think of > (compared to the record syntax) is that it would be a bigger change.
Hi Twan Using the T combinator renamed to (#) for "x.f" was idiomatic Haskell a decade ago, vis: 'Client-side Web Scripting with HaskellScript" Erik Meijer, Daan Leijen and James Hook (PADL 1999) 'Modelling HTML in Haskell' Peter Thiemann (PADL 2000) Quoting Erik Meijer et al.: To reflect the influence of the OO style, we will use the postfix function application object # method = method object to mimic the object.method notation. For your first point, I'd vote for adding (#) to Data.Function... Best wishes Stephen _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe