On 04/02/06, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan Holdermans wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Brian wrote: > > > >> I think the mystery surrounding :: and : might have been that > >> originally people thought type annotations would hardly ever be > >> needed whereas list cons is often needed, but now that it is > >> regarded as good practice to put a type annotation before every top > >> level value binding, and as the type system becomes more and more > >> complex (eg with GADTs etc), type annotations are now presumably far > >> more common than list cons so it would be good if Haskell Prime > >> would swap these operators back to their de facto universal > >> inter-language standard of list cons and type annotation > >> respectively. > > > > I don't think Haskell Prime should be about changing the look and > > feel of the language. > > Perhaps it is just a matter of aesthetics about :: and :, but I really feel > these symbols have a de-facto meaning that should have been respected and > that Haskell Prime would be a chance to correct this error. However no doubt > I'm alone in this view so fair enough - it's just syntax after all and I can > run my own programs through a pre-processor if I want them the other way > round... :-) > > Regards, Brian. >
In Haskell, they have a de-facto meaning which is opposite to the one you're talking about :) Besides, lots of papers and various other programming languages use Haskell's convention (which was taken from Miranda). - Cale _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
