On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, David House wrote: > On 07/11/06, Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I must say though, that I don't like the reasoning that we > > can put in fractional fixities because it's a small > > change. The way to hell is through a series of small > > steps. If using integers to express fixities is a bit of a > > hack, switching to rational numbers is a hack on top of a > > hack. > > Well, It's a _conceptually_ simple idea, one that doesn't make > understanding the language much harder. > > Also, it provides an infinite space for fixities. I think the problem > 'binds tighter than X but not as tight as Y', where X and Y are only > fixity integer apart is somewhat common, and this would fix it.
In school we learnt "dot operations (multiplication, division) bind more tightly than dash operations (addition, subtraction)". I imagine we would have learnt "dot operations have precedence 7, dash operations have precedence 6". :-) _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
