Aaron Denney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We already have this great syntax, parsing semanticsi for precedence, > and so forth for declaring infix operators. Couldn't we add to that > slightly by declaring postfix operators as well? Actually, declaring a > unary operator infix yielding a postfix operator doesn't seem like too > much abuse.
Possibly not, provided they're always used as sections. (e #) already always means "supply e as the first argument to (#)"). > (I haven't thought this through to any great extent. How much would it > complicate parsing? Not much, I would assume, as this fails in ghc at > the type-checking stage.) I don't think it would complicate mechanical parsing unreasonably. I do think (if done without the parentheses) it might complicate /human/ parsing unreasonably. -- Jón Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.chaos.org.uk/~jf/Stuff-I-dont-want.html (updated 2006-09-07) _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
