On 2/5/07, Ulf Norell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 3, 2007, at 6:35 AM, Douglas Philips wrote: > Well, if we're going to bring personal points of view in, it highly > pisses me off that in a construct such as: > ( expr , > expr , > expr , > expr , > expr , > ) > I have to be vigilant to remove that trailing comma when it is in > _no way_ ambiguous. How about instead writing ( expr , expr , expr , expr , expr ) The only extra work is when inserting an element at the beginning, but you have the same problem in your example.
That style would be slightly improved by allowing a _leading_ comma: [ , expr , expr , expr , expr , expr ] In the trailing comma style, it looks like: [ expr , expr , expr , expr , ] Both require a similar amount of extra space, but I've found the second useful in python lists that change a lot, so I assume I'd find similar use in Haskell lists. Of course, the layout proposal solves this problem too, but it feels like a larger change. Regarding tuples vs. lists, I care a lot less about tuples because rearranging them usually requires a type change in lots of places, so fixing a comma is the least of my worries. Jeffrey Yasskin _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
