Re: [Haskell-cafe] why can't you surround (+) in backticks and have it be infix?
On 08/01/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Was anyone in that brainstorm thinking of Chung-chieh Shan's -: and :- (http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2002-July/003215.html) It's likely. I don't remember exactly where it came from. -- -David House, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] why can't you surround (+) in backticks and have it be infix?
David House wrote: : | You can fake this: | | (-!) = ($) | (!-) = flip ($) | | foo -! liftM2 (,) !- bar | | Not perfect, but it's interesting nonetheless. | | And yes, this was a product of some #haskell | brainstorming and algorithm tennis. :) :-) Was anyone in that brainstorm thinking of Chung-chieh Shan's -: and :- (http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2002-July/003215.html) or was the similarity just a really cool coincidence? Regards, Tom ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] why can't you surround (+) in backticks and have it be infix?
On 08/01/07, Greg Buchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...I've also thought it would be nice to be able to say things like... (foo `liftM2 (,)` bar) You can fake this: (-!) = ($) (!-) = flip ($) foo -! liftM2 (,) !- bar Not perfect, but it's interesting nonetheless. And yes, this was a product of some #haskell brainstorming and algorithm tennis. :) -- -David House, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] why can't you surround (+) in backticks and have it be infix?
tphyahoo wrote:
>
> "Issues: In Haskell, any function or constructor can be enclosed in backticks
> and then used as an infix operator. "
>
> from http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~mfn/hacle/issues/node2.html
>
> But this seems to be contradicted by...
>
> from #haskell
>
> -- 09:19 < tphyahoo> > let func = (+) in 1 `func` 2
> -- 09:19 < lambdabot> 3
> -- 09:20 < tphyahoo> but ..
> -- 09:20 < tphyahoo> 1 `(+)` 2
> -- 09:20 < tphyahoo> > 1 `(+)` 2
> -- 09:20 < lambdabot> Parse error
>
> (+) is a function, is it not?
>
> Where's the rub?
The thing inside the backticks has to be a syntatic name, not an
expression. The grammar from the Haskell Report
( http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/syntax-iso.html )...
varid ->(small {small | large | digit | ' })
conid ->large {small | large | digit | ' }
varop ->varsym | `varid ` (variable operator)
qvarop ->qvarsym | `qvarid ` (qualified variable operator)
conop ->consym | `conid ` (constructor operator)
qconop ->gconsym | `qconid ` (qualified constructor operator)
...I've also thought it would be nice to be able to say things like...
(foo `liftM2 (,)` bar)
Greg Buchholz
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] why can't you surround (+) in backticks and have it be infix?
"Issues: In Haskell, any function or constructor can be enclosed in backticks and then used as an infix operator. " from http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~mfn/hacle/issues/node2.html But this seems to be contradicted by... from #haskell -- 09:19 < tphyahoo> > let func = (+) in 1 `func` 2 -- 09:19 < lambdabot> 3 -- 09:20 < tphyahoo> but .. -- 09:20 < tphyahoo> 1 `(+)` 2 -- 09:20 < tphyahoo> > 1 `(+)` 2 -- 09:20 < lambdabot> Parse error (+) is a function, is it not? Where's the rub? thomas. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/why-can%27t-you-surround-%28%2B%29-in-backticks-and-have-it-be-infix--tf2939834.html#a8219424 Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
