> So '---' is not a valid operator symbol, but '-->' is. A line
> of hyphens of
> any length introduces a comment.
>
>
> ] I do not understand the example: if every lexeme consisting of two
> ] or more hyphens begins a comment, `-->' begins a comment!
No, '-->' does not consist of two or more hyphens; 'consist of' means
'contains only', and there's a '>' in the lexeme. Is that clearer?
> Allow a type and a class to have the same name
>
> Rejected. It's an un-forced change, and it allows even more
> obscure programs
> than now. Data constructors and type constructors can share
> the same name,
> but data constructors appear only in expressions, and type
> constructors only
> in types, so there's no confusion. But classes appear in types too.
>
> ] No, no, no! Why on earth should Haskell 98 dictate the
> choice of names?
Interesting! Several people have spoken up about this one, and I don't
feel very strongly either way, so I'm open to persuasion. Just to
articulate
the alternative, I'm proposing that if types and classes can have the same
name, then in export and import lists one would say
class C
for classes, but simply
T
for types (as now). I don't want to get into whether T is a type
synomym, a data type, or a newtype; if we say 'type T' it might be
misleading.
How does that sound?
Simon
