Am Freitag, 3. Februar 2006 01:39 schrieb John Meacham:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:19:43PM -0600, Taral wrote:
> > Got a unicode-compliant compiler?
>
> sure do :)
>
> but it currently doesn't recognize any unicode characters as possible
> operators. which it should, but I am just not sure how to
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:43:15PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> GHC treats the Unicode categories Sm, Sc, Sk and So as symbols, FWIW.
> These are the same characters for which Data.Char.isSymbol returns True.
cool. I will try to make jhc do the same thing.
> How do you implement the Data.Char pre
On 03 February 2006 00:40, John Meacham wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:19:43PM -0600, Taral wrote:
>> Got a unicode-compliant compiler?
>
> sure do :)
>
> but it currently doesn't recognize any unicode characters as possible
> operators. which it should, but I am just not sure how to specif
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:19:43PM -0600, Taral wrote:
> Got a unicode-compliant compiler?
sure do :)
but it currently doesn't recognize any unicode characters as possible
operators. which it should, but I am just not sure how to specify that
yet until some sort of standard develops. Once there a
On 2/2/06, Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Montag, 30. Januar 2006 17:24 schrieb Taral:
> > On 1/30/06, Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It gives you regexp and nothing more - this makes it a pain in the
> > > arse to input every possible character that is/isn't allowe
Am Montag, 30. Januar 2006 17:24 schrieb Taral:
> On 1/30/06, Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It gives you regexp and nothing more - this makes it a pain in the
> > arse to input every possible character that is/isn't allowed.
>
> Steal it from places (vim):
>
> syn match hsLineCommen
Josef Svenningsson:
> I'm in favour of changing the comment syntax.
>
> On 2/2/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am against such a change. The change would break existing
> software
> (eg, Yampa) and secondly I don't buy the "main sources of
>
If this really is a big problem for beginners, it would not seem
totally infeasible to add some special code that helpfully suggests
that a space perhaps ought to be inserted?
Here is what Helium says:
Warning: Syntax colouring usually can not handle names containing --
Hint: If you wanted to
On 2/2/06, Henrik Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,To corroborate Wadler's law further.:-) Josef wrote:
> Oh yes, it does happen that a single line comment begins with a > special symbol. It has happened to me on several occations when using > haddock annotation to my source code. It is a
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> To corroborate Wadler's law further.
>
> Josef wrote:
>
> > Oh yes, it does happen that a single line comment begins with a
> > special symbol. It has happened to me on several occations when using
> > haddock annotation to my source co
Hi all,
To corroborate Wadler's law further.
Josef wrote:
> Oh yes, it does happen that a single line comment begins with a
> special symbol. It has happened to me on several occations when using
> haddock annotation to my source code. It is all to easy to forget that
> extra space. With incomp
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 03:04:14AM +0100, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
> I new this response were coming It basically comes down to how one
> interprets the maximal munch. I know there are plenty of people who agree
> with you. But there are those that agree with my standpoint as well. I'm not
> g
On 2/2/06, John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 02:31:32AM +0100, Josef Svenningsson wrote:> I still think there is an inconsistency here. And it has to do with maximal> munch lexing. Maximal munch is what we normally expect from a lexer for a
> programming language. But
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 02:31:32AM +0100, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
> I still think there is an inconsistency here. And it has to do with maximal
> munch lexing. Maximal munch is what we normally expect from a lexer for a
> programming language. But the way comments work at the moment breaks maxima
I'm in favour of changing the comment syntax.On 2/2/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am against such a change. The change would break existing software(eg, Yampa) and secondly I don't buy the "main sources of
confusion for beginners" argument. The confusion arises only when
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:40:26PM -0500, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> As for consistency, well if you absolutely want to make it consistent,
> impose the same rule on {- as on --.
I think it is already consistant. '--' is a valid operator while '{-'
has no valid meaning outside of a comment in
I am against such a change. The change would break existing software
(eg, Yampa) and secondly I don't buy the "main sources of
confusion for beginners" argument. The confusion arises only when a
single line comment is used to uncomment a set of characters that start
with a special symbol. That
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 12:31, Thomas Davie wrote:
> >> The fact that -- is a reserved word while {- is not just highlights
> >> farther the inconsistency in the language.
> >
> > Your position implies one of the following:
> >
> > 1) You think that "{{" ought to be a legal operator.
> >
> > 2)
The fact that -- is a reserved word while {- is not just highlights
farther the inconsistency in the language.
Your position implies one of the following:
1) You think that "{{" ought to be a legal operator.
2) You think that "-" ought not to be a legal operator.
3) You think that custom op
Thomas Davie wrote:
[they = novices]
> True but they're bound to get it wrong at least once (I know I did, and
> damn were the errors confusing).
Of course they will. They will get a lot of other things wrong at least
once, too.
Syntax is syntax. So long as it's not preposterously complex, it's
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:42:44PM +, Thomas Davie wrote:
> I agree, this is not a great argument, but the fact that the language
> is inconsistent, and that it confuses people easily, and can't come
> up with great error messages when it does go wrong, (my original
> arguments) really ar
On Jan 30, 2006, at 7:53 PM, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
Hi all,
Neil Mitchell wrote:
> Really? Using hoogle I can't find any operators that have -- as a
> substring.
For what's it worth, Yampa uses --> (along with >--).
Similarly fwiw, Simon said something along the lines of Haskell98 ->
Hask
Hi all,
Neil Mitchell wrote:
> Really? Using hoogle I can't find any operators that have -- as a
> substring.
For what's it worth, Yampa uses --> (along with >--).
Best,
/Henrik
--
Henrik Nilsson
School of Computer Science and Information Technology
The University of Nottingham
[EMAIL PROTEC
On 1/30/06, Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, I buy those arguments. But it's also rather convenient to be
> > able to use -- in operators.
>
> Really? Using hoogle I can't find any operators that have -- as a substring.
The operator "-->" certainly is a very good symbol for many
> Yes, I buy those arguments. But it's also rather convenient to be
> able to use -- in operators.
Really? Using hoogle I can't find any operators that have -- as a substring.
And some text editors can't handle regular expressions for syntax
definitions, in the same way that some editors don't p
Quoting Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I agree, this is not a great argument, but the fact that the language
is inconsistent, and that it confuses people easily, and can't come
up with great error messages when it does go wrong, (my original
arguments) really are good arguments for fixin
It gives you regexp and nothing more - this makes it a pain in
the arse to input every possible character that is/isn't allowed.
Bob
Oh, come on. It's a one time pain. How hard can it be?
I agree, this is not a great argument, but the fact that the language
is inconsistent, and that
Quoting Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 30 Jan 2006, at 14:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 30 Jan 2006, at 14:28, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Another argument in favour of this is that most editors with syntax
hilighting will show --> as a comment
On 1/30/06, Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It gives you regexp and nothing more - this makes it a pain in the
> arse to input every possible character that is/isn't allowed.
Steal it from places (vim):
syn match hsLineComment "---*\([^-!#$%&\*\+./<=>[EMAIL
PROTECTED]|~].*\)\?$
On 30 Jan 2006, at 14:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 30 Jan 2006, at 14:28, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Another argument in favour of this is that most editors with
syntax
hilighting will show --> as a comment, which again increases the
confusion facto
Quoting Thomas Davie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 30 Jan 2006, at 14:28, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Another argument in favour of this is that most editors with syntax
hilighting will show --> as a comment, which again increases the
confusion factor.
I would rather argue that since we have editors wit
On 30 Jan 2006, at 14:28, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Another argument in favour of this is that most editors with syntax
hilighting will show --> as a comment, which again increases the
confusion factor.
I would rather argue that since we have editors with syntax
highlighting, this isn't a big prob
> > Another argument in favour of this is that most editors with syntax
> > hilighting will show --> as a comment, which again increases the
> > confusion factor.
>
> I would rather argue that since we have editors with syntax
> highlighting, this isn't a big problem. The editor will tell you (if
>
On 30 Jan 2006, at 14:01, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Thomas Davie wrote:
Except that there is a good reason (pos two) why the language is
wrong
- it's inconsistant with the other comment syntax, and it's
confusing
to newbies.
I tend to think of "--" as a reserved word in the same se
Thomas Davie wrote:
> Except that there is a good reason (pos two) why the language is wrong
> - it's inconsistant with the other comment syntax, and it's confusing
> to newbies.
I tend to think of "--" as a reserved word in the same sense as "case"
is a reserved word. Hence, -- starts a comment
On 30 Jan 2006, at 13:51, Ulf Norell wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Another argument in favour of this is that most editors with syntax
hilighting will show --> as a comment, which again increases the
confusion factor.
I would rather argue that since we have edito
On Jan 30, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Another argument in favour of this is that most editors with syntax
hilighting will show --> as a comment, which again increases the
confusion factor.
I would rather argue that since we have editors with syntax
highlighting, this isn't a big
Another argument in favour of this is that most editors with syntax
hilighting will show --> as a comment, which again increases the
confusion factor.
Thanks
Neil
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listin
That's the way it used to be, and I agree it's more consistent.
Thomas Davie wrote:
I would like to suggest a different change to single line comment
syntax to do two things. First, address an inconsistency with multi
line comments, and secondly remove one of the main sources of confusion
39 matches
Mail list logo
