Hello,
A question about the syntax: would there be a problem if we made the
'deriving' declaration look like an instance? Then we would not need
the special identifier 'for', and also we have a more standard looking
notation. I am thinking something like:
deriving Show SomeType
deriving Eq (AnotherType a)
-Iavor
On 10/5/06, Björn Bringert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | What is not so nice is that you take a new keyword ('for'), which is
> | quite likely to have been used as a variable name in existing code.
> (Or
> | does it work out to use one of the 'special' names here?)
>
> The latter is what Bjorn has done. That is, 'for' is only special in
> this one context. You can use it freely otherwise. As I understand it
> anyway.
Yes. There is even a "for" function somewhere in the libraries (or was
it the testsuite, can't remeber), which tripped up one of my early
versions, before I had remembered to make "for" as a special ID in the
parser.
> | I think it would be useful to write the proposal in complete detail up
> | on the Haskell' wiki.
>
> Yes please. Bjorn? (It may just be a qn of transcribing the user
> manual stuff you have written.)
Sure. It seems that I have to be on the committee to write to the Wiki.
Can I join it?
/Björn
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
