Quoth Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com>,
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 17:14, Donn Cave <d...@avvanta.com> wrote:
>
>> "Spaces or unicode" would be the worst idea yet, but hopefully that
>> isn't what you meant.
>
>
> Thing is, I think the spaces idea is considered acceptable because it's
> *already there*. Take a look at how GHC decides whether (.) is the
> composition operator or a module qualification.
Sure, but I mean: given that "f . g" continues to be composition,
but a record notation takes over the unspaced dot, breaking an
existing "f.g" ...
... what is the rationale for an additional unicode dot?
That's why I more or less assume that wasn't what he meant, that
both " . " and "<unicode dot>" would be supported at the same time
for composition, but rather just that one or the other would be
chosen.
Donn
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
