Pertti Kellomäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> > From: Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > "Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > You want to be able to write
> >
> > > f 1 2 + g 3 4
> >
> > > instead of
> >
> > > (f 1 2) + (g 3 4)
> >
> > I do? Personally, I find it a bit confusing, and I still often get it
> > wrong on the first attempt.
>
> Same here. A while back someone said something along the lines that people
> come to Haskell because of the syntax. For me it is the other way around.
> My background is in Scheme/Lisp, and I still find it irritating that I cannot
> just say indent-sexp and the like in Emacs. It is the other properties of the
> language that keep me using it. I also get irritated when I get
> precedence wrong, so in fact I tend to write (f 1 2) + (g 2 3), which to
> my eye conveys the intended structure much better and compiles at first try.
In languages that don't use curring, you would write
f (1, 2) + g (2, 3)
which also gives application precedence over infix
operators. So, I think, we can safely say that application
being stronger than infix operators is the standard
situation.
Nevertheless, the currying notation is a matter of habit.
It took me a while to get used to it, too (as did layout).
But now, I wouldn't want to miss them anymore. And as far
as layout is concerned, I think, the Python people have made
the same experience. For humans, it is quite natural to use
visual cues (like layout) to indicate semantics.
Cheers,
Manuel
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
