Generally allowing trailing (or leading or repeated) commas would clash
with tuple sections. Also the pair constructor "(,)" is a special case.
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.0.4/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#tuple-sections
Cheers Christian
Am 11.07.2011 12:09, schrieb Joachim Breitner
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Henning Thielemann
wrote:
Johan Tibell wrote:
I've found this quite annoying, especially when using CPP to
conditionally include something in a list, as it might force you to
reorder the list to make the commas appear
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Henning Thielemann
wrote:
> Johan Tibell wrote:
>> I've found this quite annoying, especially when using CPP to
>> conditionally include something in a list, as it might force you to
>> reorder the list to make the commas appear correctly when the
>> conditional se
> That just shifts the problem, I think? Now you can no longer comment out the
> first line.
If you are using to-end-of-line comments with --, then the likelihood of
noticing a leading ( or { on the line being commented, is much greater than the
likelihood of noticing a trailing comma on the
Hi,
Am Montag, den 11.07.2011, 10:49 +0200 schrieb L Corbijn:
> You could of course say that I'm using a bad style, but it remains
> that it seems to be inconsistent to allow a trailing comma in one
> place and not in the other. So is there an reason for this?
there is actually a bug report again
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
>
> On Jul 11, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Jack Henahan wrote:
>
>> Well, for your example frustration, the leading comma style would sort your
>> problem nicely. As for the particulars… hmm, not sure. I use leading commas
>> for both, so I never r
On Jul 11, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Jack Henahan wrote:
> Well, for your example frustration, the leading comma style would sort your
> problem nicely. As for the particulars… hmm, not sure. I use leading commas
> for both, so I never really noticed.
That just shifts the problem, I think? Now you ca
On 11 July 2011 10:49, L Corbijn wrote:
> You could of course say that I'm using a bad style, but it remains that it
> seems to be inconsistent to allow a trailing comma in one place and not in
> the other. So is there an reason for this?
I've also noticed that I can write
data X = X deriving Sh
Well, for your example frustration, the leading comma style would sort your
problem nicely. As for the particulars… hmm, not sure. I use leading commas for
both, so I never really noticed.
It may be that since modules simply expose functions to other programs, the
form is syntactically irreleva
Hello,
I'm wondering why the trailing comma is allowed in export syntax, but not in
record syntax, here an example
module Foo (
export1, -- is allowed
) where
data Type = Type {
record1 :: Foo, -- is not allowed
}
To me this seems quite inconsistent and sometimes quite frustrating, imag
10 matches
Mail list logo
