Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Lennart Augustsson:
So I still think changing $ is insane. Why change? If you want a new
operator, make a new one. Don't make a gratuitous change that will
waste countless man hours. For me it's a simple decision, if $
changes I cannot use Haskell'. :(
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. So I counter-propose that we deal with pattern bindings like this:
The static semantics of a pattern binding are given by the following
translation. A binding 'p = e' has the same meaning as the set of
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I suggest we reject the proposal, and move any further discussion to
haskell-cafe. Ok?
Sounds good to me.
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:42:10AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
Ok. So I counter-propose that we deal with pattern bindings like this:
The static semantics of a pattern binding are given by the following
translation. A binding 'p = e' has the same meaning as the set of
bindings
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:39:09AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
Ok, I'm going to try to make some progress on this. I think it's fair
to say that the only possible options are (0) do nothing, or (2) require
spaces around . as an operator.
If we are considering requiring spaces around . then
I don't think it makes sense to make a special case for requiring spaces
around $, as TH won't be in H'.
I agree, there's absolutely no need to treat $ differently in H'. The
situation will already be better than it is now, since by the special
treatment of . (and - and !, which I also agree
