Brian Hurt wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, wren ng thornton wrote:
> Even with functionalists ---of the OCaml and SML ilk--- this use of
> spaces can be confusing if noone explains that function application
> binds tighter than all operators.
Bwuh? Ocaml programmers certainly know that application binds tighter
than operators. And as:
Not being of either ilk, perhaps I mis-relayed the confusions of a
friend recently converted to Haskell :)
The issue I was raising had not so much to do with un/currying of
functions but rather whether something like "foo bar %^& baz" means
"(foo bar) %^& baz" or "foo (bar %^& baz)".
I believe this was voiced as an SML issue more than an OCaml issue,
though honestly I don't know enough of the differences to distinguish
them. Before I mentioned that function/prefix application always binds
tighter than operator/infix application, he was using many redundant
parentheses, thanks to defensive programming against whichever dialect
was at fault.
--
Live well,
~wren
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
