If you can parse "do x == y == z" or "case 0 of x -> x == x == True"
you're probably ok. I can't tell from your example if this works
or not.
-- Lennart
Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
On 2006 mrt 09, at 1:54, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I agree with it being complicated. I don't know of any compiler
that implements it correctly. Do you say your combinators do?
At least we think so. The way to use it is e.g.:
pExprPrefix = sem_Expr_Let <$ pKey "let" <*> pDecls <* pKey "in"
pDecls = foldr sem_Decls_Cons sem_Decls_Nil
<$> pBlock pOCurly pSemi
pCCurly pDecl
pDecl = sem_Decl_Val <$> pPatExprBase <* pKey
"=" <*> pExpr
<|> sem_Decl_TySig <$> pVar <* pKey
"::" <*> pTyExpr
in which the pBlock takes care of the offside rule, in cooperation with
the scanner.
That said, I don't think it can be replaced easily without breaking
existing code, so I'm unwilling to change unless someone can show
an alternative that handles 99.9% of the existing code.
There are solutions to this kind of transitions. Compilers could admit
the old rule, and emit a warning when e.g. the
--this-is-supposed-to-be-strictly-haskell-prime flag is passed. One
might also equip a compiler to transform one's program into the new
standard.
Doaitse
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
