I prefer them to be part of the context-free syntax, since this enables a
future extension in which an arbitary expression can be placed between
backticks. This would enable one to write things as:
x `f i` y
and
expr1 `expr2` expr3
is to be interpreted as (expr2) (expr1) (expr3),
Doaitse
On Feb 8, 2013, at 13:27 , Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 08/02/13 11:49, Ben Millwood wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 12:24:48PM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>> FWIW, I really dislike whitespace-significant syntax. f ! x should
>>> mean the same as f !x. Look at the trouble we have with qualified
>>> operators: how many people have tried to write [Monday..] and been
>>> surprised that it doesn't work?
>>
>> What about `elem`? I don't think anyone would argue that ` elem ` makes
>> sense.
>
> Prelude> 1 ` elem ` [1..10]
> True
> Prelude> 1 ` {- comment -} elem ` [1..10]
> True
>
> backticks are part of the context-free syntax, not the lexical syntax (as
> they should be!). I'm of the opinion that the lexical syntax should be as
> simple, and as far as possible everything should be pushed into the
> context-free syntax.
>
> Cheers,
> Simon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
