Re: Unary operators [was: Re: ~ patterns]
On Feb 3, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: Hello Benjamin, Friday, February 03, 2006, 2:29:47 AM, you wrote: (+ x) --->> (? + x) i like this idea! but i tink that it's too late for such incompatible change :( really, unary operators can be added to language without any troubles. we need only to prohibit using of the same symbol for unary and binary operators: unary 9 # #n = n-1 f = #1-1 we can even allow prefix and postfix operators as long as they all have different names The notable exception in this case, '-' (or anything starting with -), which breaks block comment syntax (see my earlier example). Bob ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Re: Unary operators [was: Re: ~ patterns]
Hello Benjamin, Friday, February 03, 2006, 2:29:47 AM, you wrote: (+ x) --->> (? + x) i like this idea! but i tink that it's too late for such incompatible change :( really, unary operators can be added to language without any troubles. we need only to prohibit using of the same symbol for unary and binary operators: unary 9 # #n = n-1 f = #1-1 we can even allow prefix and postfix operators as long as they all have different names -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Re: Unary operators [was: Re: ~ patterns]
On 2/2/06, Benjamin Franksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This would open the possibility to allow unary (prefix) operators in > general which I find rather more useful than sections. Down that road lies APL. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." -- Edsger Dijkstra ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Unary operators [was: Re: ~ patterns]
On Thursday 02 February 2006 23:25, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2006 01:32 schrieb Patryk Zadarnowski: > > [...] > > > > The proposal would be to remove the unary "-" altogether, and, > > instead, extend the lexical syntax of numeric constant to allow "+" > > and "-" prefix. > > Would this mean that (-x) is a section while (-1) isn't? That would > be confusing. > > Apart from this, I would like to see the only unary operator of > Haskell removed. I'd rather have operator sections removed. They are not very intuitive anyway and can be easily replaced, i.e. (+ x) ---> flip (+) x (x +) ---> (+) x which could profit from the proposal to generalize currying: f ? === (\x -> f x) [I prefer '?' for the 'left out' argument, rather than '_'] We could then replace the section (+ x) ---> (+) ? x or even (+ x) ---> (? + x) This would open the possibility to allow unary (prefix) operators in general which I find rather more useful than sections. Ben ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
