Malcolm Wallace wrote: > Because parsing > of infix operators is difficult, all implementations (to my knowledge) > leave resolution of fixity and associativity until later. Indeed, the > Haskell 98 standard recognises this (in an oblique way) by permitting > infix decls to appear *after* the first use. Hbc does the resolution while parsing, which means it cannot be Haskell 98 compliant. I really dislike the new rules about where infix can occur since they don't really buy us anything, but they do force a more complicated implementation. (Just as an aside. Local infix declarations, which was just added to Haskell 98, was very high on the list of design mistakes in SML and will be removed in ML2000.) -- -- Lennart
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Ian Holyer
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Carl R. Witty
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Lennart Augustsson
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Mike Thyer
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- RE: The dreaded layout rule Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- RE: The dreaded layout rule Simon Peyton-Jones
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Wolfram Kahl
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Malcolm Wallace
- RE: The dreaded layout rule Lennart Augustsson
- RE: The dreaded layout rule Simon Marlow
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- RE: The dreaded layout rule Simon Marlow
- RE: The dreaded layout rule Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Christian Sievers
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Christian Sievers
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Carl R. Witty
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Guy Lapalme
- Re: The dreaded layout rule Andreas Rossberg