Fair enough.
On 20/12/2011, Chris Smith <cdsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Farkas-Dyck > <strake...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Another thought: >> Perhaps bang as record selection operator. It would avoid further >> corner cases of dot, and it's not unprecedented in Haskell (e.g. >> Data.Map.!). > > We already have weird syntax rules for dot, and the proposed change > (i.e., dot is an identifier when surrounded with spaces, else it's > reserved syntax) actually makes the rules *simpler* in some ways > rather than more complex... so why wouldn't we do it that way? > > The more difficult bit isn't about quirks of syntax, but rather about > some significant semantic issues and differing design goals.... should > we have a built-in notion of lenses... if so, which formulation... > what kinds of punning do we want to preserve, and how deeply should > punning go in the semantics, versus be a shallow kind of sugar... how > does that interact with the type system... and so on. These are the > significant problems. > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
