My opinion is that if we can avoid stealing syntax, we should. I am indeed concerned about complicating the parser overmuch... but I don't think that parser code complexity should, by itself, drive the language design.
Richard On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:50 AM, Jan Stolarek <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll take a look at the parser, see if we can do better. > >> I also suggest that keywords introduced by GHC extensions should be lexed as >> keywords regardless >> of whether extension is enabled or not: this way users won't get spurious >> errors if they >> suddenly enable extension and it turns out that some of their identifiers >> have become keywords. > I would be cautious here. Patch I am working on right now will use "kind" as > a reserved > identifier. It will only be allowed after `data` keyword. Making it a > reserved word everywhere > would be a major issue as many people doing type-level programming have > variables named "kind". > You ar right that problem would be much smaller if the keyword was "datakind" > but somehow I am > reluctant to seeing things like "datakindmember", "typeinstance", etc. What > others think about > this proposal? > > Janek > > --- > Politechnika Łódzka > Lodz University of Technology > > Treść tej wiadomości zawiera informacje przeznaczone tylko dla adresata. > Jeżeli nie jesteście Państwo jej adresatem, bądź otrzymaliście ją przez > pomyłkę > prosimy o powiadomienie o tym nadawcy oraz trwałe jej usunięcie. > > This email contains information intended solely for the use of the individual > to whom it is addressed. > If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this message in > error, > please notify the sender and delete it from your system. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
