Sounds good to me.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Dr. ÉRDI Gergő <ge...@erdi.hu> wrote: > Exactly, the problem is precisely that $foo is regarded as an infix > operator in that code path, so with my change, it would be classified as > prefix. > On Mar 17, 2014 10:10 PM, "Simon Peyton Jones" <simo...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > >> Do they show up in –ddump-simpl? It would be nice to keep that output >> as readable as possible, as there are quite a few of us that read it on a >> regular basis. >> >> >> >> I don’t think so (because –ddump-simpl doesn’t print **any** operators >> in parens) but I could be wrong, and I agree that would be bad. >> >> >> >> Does that mean that any operator that starts with $ will now not be >> considered infix for printing purposes? >> >> >> >> No, I believe that Gergo’s suggestion is that a function be considered >> infix operator (for display purposes) only if all its characters are >> operator chars, rather than just the first one. >> >> >> >> Simon >> >> >> >> *From:* Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tib...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* 17 March 2014 14:00 >> *To:* Simon Peyton Jones >> *Cc:* Dr. ERDI Gergo; GHC Devs >> *Subject:* Re: -ddump-types vs -fprint-explicit-foralls, and symbol-ness >> of worker/wrapper names [Re: [commit: ghc] master: Pretty-print the >> following TyThings via their IfaceDecl counterpart: * AnId * ACoAxiom * >> AConLike (065c35a) (fwd)] >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Simon Peyton Jones < >> simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> | The one interesting case is T4306 which fails because the generated >> name >> >> | $wupd is regarded as an infix name, and thus with my new code is >> | rendered as >> | >> | ($wupd) :: GHC.Prim.Double# -> GHC.Prim.Double# >> | >> | instead of the old >> | >> | $wupd :: GHC.Prim.Double# -> GHC.Prim.Double# >> >> I think it'd also be ok just to accept this output too. These "$wxx" >> names are generated by GHC and won't show up in user output. It doesn't >> much matter displaying them in parens. >> >> >> >> Do they show up in -ddump-simpl? It would be nice to keep that output as >> readable as possible, as there are quite a few of us that read it on a >> regular basis. >> >> >> >> But changing isLexVarSym is probably equally fine too. I think (worth a >> check) that it's only called for display purposes, and not in any >> performance-critical parts. >> >> Whichever you choose, add a Note with isLexVarSym to explain the issue >> and the choice. >> >> >> >> Does that mean that any operator that starts with $ will now not be >> considered infix for printing purposes? >> >> >> >> -- Johan >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs