Speaking of MagicHash, is it really necessary to take an operator with "potential" like (#) just to keep primitive symbols separate from the rest? At least from my 2010 Haskell learner perspective, it seems odd to create a whole language extension/lexical change just for that purpose.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:20 PM, wren ng thornton <[email protected]>wrote: > On 10/28/10 10:42 AM, Ben Millwood wrote: > >> Here's the wiki page: >> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/CompositionAsDot >> >> Personally I think function composition is what Haskell is all about >> and it is absolutely essential that the syntax for it be lightweight. >> If we think using . as qualification as well as composition is >> confusing, I'm much more inclined to say using it as qualification was >> a mistake. >> >> The comment on the wiki page about $ being more common in reality is >> not even close to true for my own code, and I don't think I'm unusual >> in that regard. >> > > Agreed on both counts. Personally, I'd much rather have name qualification > and record selection use a different character than to remove (.) as > composition. And replacing (.) with some abomination like `o` is > unthinkable. > > As for the selector character, I'm partial to # but that would clash with > MagicHash. > > -- > Live well, > ~wren > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
