ite bang patterns than it is to
> define '!', and the workaround of writing (!) is not that onerous.
>
I agree, I prefer the invariant that lexically whitespace does not matter. It
is easier to understand, implement, and it is not such a big deal to have the
choice of meaning (
On 14 Jul, 2010, at 14:22 , Christian Maeder wrote:
> Atze Dijkstra schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I prefer the simplicity of
>> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/NegationBindsTightly over
>> the more involved proposal.
>
> It's a simple
//hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/NegationBindsTightly
>>
>> please consider merging the proposals, or at least clearly identifying
>> the differences, if any.
>
> ___
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime
ll-prime@haskell.org
> | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>
> ___
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
- Atze -
Atze
In UHC it was unpleasant to make it work, because in (e) and (e +) it
only is detected just before the closing parenthesis which of the two
alternatives (i.e. parenthesized or sectioned expression) must be
chosen. The use of LL parsing aggravates this somewhat, so the
required left-factorin
list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
- Atze -
Atze Dijkstra, Department of Infor
many obvious necessities
(like a manual :-() are still missing.
regards,
- Atze -
Atze Dijkstra, Department of Information and Computing Sciences. /|\
Utrecht University, PO Box 80089, 3508 TB Utrecht, Netherlands. / | \
Tel.: +31-30-2534093/1454 | WWW : http://www.cs.uu.nl
instead of implicitly (and more cryptic) 5 + * 6. I do not
feel that stretching the syntax in this way warrants the loss in
possibilities to check for errors.
regards,
- Atze -
Atze Dijkstra, Department of Information and Computing Sciences. /|\
Utrecht University, PO Box 800
