Agreed. I was surprised by the language inconsistency when I discovered that symbols were ruled out for type variables. It just seemed natural to me when programming with arrows, and I'm surprised it hasn't shown itself useful before. - Conal
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:58 PM To: Remi Turk Cc: [email protected]; Simon Peyton-Jones Subject: Re: infix type operators On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:59:40PM +0100, Remi Turk wrote: > - It's one thing more to learn. The difference between types and > typevariables (upper/lowercase) is better visible than the > difference between operator(variables) and infix-types ("Does > it start with a colon?") Which, I have to admit, is more of a > vague feeling than anything like a fact. On the contrary: it's one less exception to remember. With this change, the lexical syntax of type variables and type constructors is exactly the same as that for data variables and data constructors respectively, except that there are some special type constructors (->), (), (,,), etc, just as there are some special data constructors like 1.7, (), (,,) etc. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
