Actually, we don't need symbols at all, nor all these damned letters. The set of valid characters in an identifier can be of size 2: one each upper- and lower-case, e.g. [Pp].
For example, to define const function: p :: P (p (P pp p)); p pp _ = pp; where P is function type. If we drop all the symbols, and all numerals but [01], we could have a 6-bit character set! On 12/01/2012, Donn Cave <[email protected]> wrote: >> Quoth Brandon Allbery <[email protected]>, > ... >> Seems obvious to me: on the one hand, there should be a plain-ASCII >> version of any Unicode symbol; on the other, the ASCII version has >> shortcomings the Unicode one doesn't (namely the existing conflict between >> use as composition and use as module and now record qualifier). So, the >> Unicode one requires support but avoids weird parse issues. > > OK. To me, the first hand is all you need - if there should be a > plain-ASCII version of any Unicode symbol anyway, then you can avoid > some trouble by just recognizing that you don't need Unicode symbols > (let alone with different parsing rules.) > > Donn > > _______________________________________________ > 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
