On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 21:29 -0600, Chris Smith wrote: > Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think this is a fantastic idea, please do so! > > > > Okay, I'll do it then. If I have a good weekend, perhaps I'll volunteer > a talk at AngloHaskell after all! :) > > So what about syntax? I agree with your objections, so we've got > > ( <- expr ) -- makes sense, and I think it's unambiguous > ``expr`` -- back-ticks make sense for UNIX shell scripters > > The first is something Simon Peyton-Jones came up with (probably on-the- > fly) at OSCON, and I rather like it a lot; but I'm concerned about > ambiguity. The latter seems sensible as well. Any other ideas?
The latter is not sensible to me at all. It doesn't nest well. Neither does the former for that matter, but it forces parenthesizing. You will find that being clear on nesting is very important. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
