On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Mark P. Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In Haskell, the precedence of type annotation is very low. This has the > consequence that type annotation lacks a certain symmetry: > > > > a:int + b => (a:int) + b > > I think you've misunderstood the Haskell grammar. The first of > your examples, even after replacing : with ::, is a syntax error. > Mark is (as usual) correct. I had mis-read the grammar. In Haskell, that annotation needs to be written as: (a:int) + b So I suppose the question now is: where should type annotation be in the BitC precedence hierarchy? I prefer that it bind tightly, but this probably just reflects the fact that I'm coming from C, and that is what is familiar. Is there a strong or compelling reason to have it bind loosely (other than the mixfix complications)? shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
