On 02/11/2012 09:21 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
On 12/02/2012, at 02:04, Greg Weber wrote:
I am sorry that I made the huge mistake in referencing future possible
proposals. If this proposal passes, that has no bearing on whether the
other proposals would pass, it just makes them possible.
Pl
This proposal stands on its own
* the dot operator is inconsistent with Module function selection.
* we are allowed the option of expanding the usage of the dot without
spaces if this proposal goes forward.
The point is that we will decide whether or not to expand the usage of
the dot in the *futu
On 12/02/2012, at 02:04, Greg Weber wrote:
> I am sorry that I made the huge mistake in referencing future possible
> proposals. If this proposal passes, that has no bearing on whether the
> other proposals would pass, it just makes them possible.
>
> Please help me fix my error by stopping all d
I am sorry that I made the huge mistake in referencing future possible
proposals. If this proposal passes, that has no bearing on whether the
other proposals would pass, it just makes them possible.
Please help me fix my error by stopping all discussions of future
proposals and focusing solely on
On 12/02/2012, at 01:29, Nate Soares wrote:
> If -> was introduced for accessing fields, we'd have to discuss whether it
> should have spaces around it. I'd lean towards requiring that it have no
> spaces when used for field access, for symmetry with "." when used for module
> access.
I'm not
I'm very +1 on using -> for field access, I think it's a nice compromise. I
doubt there are ambiguities considering that arrow do-notation (
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.2.2/html/users_guide/arrow-notation.html)
managed
to use "->" without trouble. One possible concern is stomping on the feet
On 10/02/2012, at 02:41, Greg Weber wrote:
> There are 2 compelling reasons I know of to prefer dot for record access
> 1) follows an almost universal convention in modern programming languages
> 2) is consistent with using the dot to select functions from module
> name-spaces
I don't understand
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Doug McIlroy wrote:
> For example, this code fragment to define addition on lists
> is instantly intelligible.
>
> instance Num a => Num [a] where
> (f:fs) + (g:gs) = f+g : fs+gs
>
> But the formula becomes merely an obscure procession of symbols when
> rewr
> +1 to the idea of requiring spaces around all operators.
> It's just good style
> Cutting things close syntactically just because you can is perhaps
> not the best of ideas
Haskell is mathematical both in substance and style. I would
not lightly prohibit the use of spacing conventions that h
