On Thursday 26 May 2011 17:22:10, Jonas Almström Duregård wrote: > Unfortunately it does not play nice with $.
Yes. > Also I'm not sure this can be used for defining trees or nested function > application since a nesting of the operator inevitably require > parenthesis. It can't be nested, like ($) can't be nested. You could however add infixl 1 ?? infixl 2 ??? ... to achieve the possibility of nesting (but you have to be careful with low- precedence operators if you actually want to use that). As far as I'm concerned, a left-associative version of ($) would sometimes be nice (on the other hand, right-associativity of ($) is sometimes also nice), but usually, I don't find parentheses too obnoxious. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe