On the topic of liberalizing operators that are currently only used in patterns, another one that would be amazing to have as a valid term (or type operator) is @ using similar () tricks. 1 character operator names are in dreadful short supply and really help make nice DSLs.
-Edward On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Ian Lynagh <i...@well-typed.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 07:26:16PM -0500, Edward Kmett wrote: > > If space sensitivity or () disambiguation is being used on !, could one > of > > these also be permitted on ~ to permit it as a valid infix term-level > > operator? > > I don't think there's any reason ~ couldn't be an operator, defined with > the > (~) x y = ... > syntax. > > Allowing it to be defined with infix syntax would be a little trickier. > > > Hmm, I've just realised that if we decide to make !_ and !foo lexemes, > then we'd also want !(+) to be a lexeme, which presumably means we'd > want (+) to be a single lexeme too (and also `foo`, for consistency). > But I don't think making that change would be problematic. > > > Thanks > Ian > > > _______________________________________________ > 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