wren ng thornton <wren <at> freegeek.org> writes: > > Will Ness wrote: > > > (`foldl`2) works. > > > > (`-`2) should too. > > The `` syntax is for converting lexical identifiers into infix > operators. Symbolic identifiers are already infix, which is why ``
So it would be a no-op then. Why make it illegal? Just because it makes writing the scanner easier is no answer. > doesn't work for them. If we introduced this then those striving for > consistency would be right in requesting that this pattern be allowed > for all symbolic operators. I for one am opposed to introducing > superfluous syntax for duplicating the current ability to write things > in the same ways. This syntax already exists. The '`' symbol is non-collating already, so using it for symbol chars doesn't change anything (it's not that it can be a part of some name, right?). To turn an infix op into an infix op is an id operation, made illegal artificially at the scan phase after a successful lex (or whatever). Finally enabling the missing functionality which is a common stumbling block for every beginner is hardly "duplicating". > Attack the underlying problem, don't introduce hacks to cover up broken > hacks. This isn't C++. The underlying problem is a broken scanner where it can't distinguish between a binary op and a number read syntax. Op names are collated symbol chars, and one of the symbols, -, is also a valid number prefix. So, allow for a clues from programmer to detach it from the number: backticks separate it from the following numeric chars, preventing it from "sticking" to them. And by itself, it forms an op, a binary one. Not a hack, a solution. A consistent one. Look: (`foldl` 0) (`-` 2) Don't they look exactly the same? Why wouldn't it be made legal? Show me one inconsistency it introduces. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
