Isaac Dupree wrote:
>> {-# LANGUAGE ForeignFunctionInterface #-}
>> module Foo where
>
> Suppose all modules have an implicit, unavoidable
>
>> import ":SpecialSyntax" (module, where, let, [], -- ...
>> , foreign --because that extension is enabled
>> )
>
> Now l
Simon Marlow wrote:
> I believe the solution we adopted for GHC 6.8.1 (and I proposed for
> Haskell') strikes the right balance.
>
> M.where is lexed as an identifier. This doesn't require adding any
> exceptions or corner cases to either the implementation or the
> specification of the grammar.
Simon Marlow wrote:
I believe the solution we adopted for GHC 6.8.1 (and I proposed for
Haskell') strikes the right balance.
M.where is lexed as an identifier. This doesn't require adding any
exceptions or corner cases to either the implementation or the
specification of the grammar. It is
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:53:11PM +0200, Christian Maeder wrote:
Hi Isaac,
just to give you a reply at all, see below. I reply
glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org since I'm not subscribed to
haskell-prime. And I don't want to subscribe, because I'm more
interested that Haske
Christian Maeder wrote:
> Stefan O'Rear wrote:
>> What's wrong with the status quo? Our current lexical rules *seem*
>> complicated to newbies, but just like everything else in Haskell it
>> carries a deep simplicity; having only one rule (maximal-munch) gives a
>> certain elegance that the propos
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> What's wrong with the status quo? Our current lexical rules *seem*
> complicated to newbies, but just like everything else in Haskell it
> carries a deep simplicity; having only one rule (maximal-munch) gives a
> certain elegance that the proposals all lack.
I'm quite in fa
Christian Maeder wrote:
| 3. I'm against qualified identifiers, with the unqualified part being a
| keyword like "Foo.where". (The choice of qualification should be left to
| the user, usually one is not forced to used qualified names.)
Okay, here's a thought experiment... one may follow along, a
Christian Maeder wrote:
Hi Isaac,
just to give you a reply at all, see below. I reply
glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org since I'm not subscribed to
haskell-prime. And I don't want to subscribe, because I'm more
interested that Haskell becomes more stable (and standard).
Then maybe you can join
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan
O'Rear
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 2:45 PM
To: Christian Maeder
Cc: Haskell Prime; GHC Users Mailing List; Isaac Dupree
Subject: Re: Qualified identifiers opinion
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:53:11PM +0200, Christian Maeder wrote:
> Hi Isaac,
>
> just to give you a reply at all, see below. I reply
> glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org since I'm not subscribed to
> haskell-prime. And I don't want to subscribe, because I'm more
> interested that Haskell becomes m
Hi Isaac,
just to give you a reply at all, see below. I reply
glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org since I'm not subscribed to
haskell-prime. And I don't want to subscribe, because I'm more
interested that Haskell becomes more stable (and standard). So here is
my opinion:
1. The lexer should recogni
11 matches
Mail list logo
