"Brian Hulley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for pointing this out. Although there is still a problem with > the fact that var, qvar, qcon etc is in the context free syntax > instead of the lexical syntax so you could write: > > 2 ` plus ` 4 > ( Prelude.+ > {- a comment -} ) 5 6
You appear to be right. However, I don't think I have ever seen a piece of code that actually used the first form. People seem to naturally place the backticks right next to the variable name. Should we consider the fact that whitespace and comments are permitted between backticks to be a bug in the Report? It certainly feels like it should be a lexical issue. On the other hand, the second form looks a lot like just bracketting an ordinary expression, and whitespace and comments can frequently be seen in such a position. If we disallow whitespace in the backtick case, it would feel wrong to permit it in the parenthesised "dual". Does anyone from the original language committee have any memory of why these choices were taken? Regards, Malcolm _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe