Sure. I'd rather have nothing, but at least unlike the (.) proposals it doesn't break existing code.
That said I don't think we need either. On Jul 1, 2013, at 2:27 AM, "John Wiegley" <jo...@fpcomplete.com> wrote: >>>>>> Edward Kmett <ekm...@gmail.com> writes: > >> If you really want to hunt for unused syntax and we wind up needing a (.) >> analogue then (->) is currently a reserved operator, so opening it up for >> use at the term level could be made to work, and there is a precedent with >> c/c++ pointer dereferencing. > > Imagine this possible code: > > foo :: Maybe Foo -> Bar > foo (fromMaybe def -> x) = \x -> case x of > Foo x -> x->y->z > > I think it might get a bit ugly to give it a 5th meaning. > > -- > John Wiegley > FP Complete Haskell tools, training and consulting > http://fpcomplete.com johnw on #haskell/irc.freenode.net > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
