Perhaps the editor could assume a default precedence when the user-defined precedence is not yet available. Preferably, the editor would also somehow yell at the user to indicate that it is making such an assumption.
I think it's unreasonable to tie programmers' hands for the sake of off-loading rather trivial tasks to editors. Nick On 10/14/06, Bertram Felgenhauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brian Hulley wrote: > infixr 9 . !! 9 9.9 > infixr 8 ^, ^^, ** 8 8.8 7.7 > infixl 7 *, /, 7 7 > infixl 6 +, - 6 6 > infixr 5 : , ++ 5 6.6 > infix 4 ==, /=, <, <=, >=, > 4.4 7.4 1 1.4 1.4 1 > infixr 3 && 3.3 > infixr 2 || 2.2 > infixl 1 >>, >>= 1.1 1.14 > infixr 1 =<< 1.14 > infixr 0 $, $! 0 0.9 Ouch. Really, the first priority in the language should be human readability. Looking up a fixity isn't that hard, but remembering a rule like this is pretty awful. You also restrict the freedom of library designers for no good reason. Precedences aren't usually random ... As far as editors go I have little sympathy. I also see nothing wrong with forcing a coder to have at least a module stub that defines its interface and the operator precedences, to make the parsing work reliably. You'll have to deal with the case where parsing fails anyway, and it shouldn't be too hard between failures due to unsufficient information (which shouldn't be tagged as errors, but maybe give some other indication) and real errors. Bertram _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
