Context if you haven't been following: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1215
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:12:33PM -0000, GHC wrote: > > Interesting. It turns out I misinterpreted the Haskell lexical syntax: > GHC lexes `M.default` as `M` `.` `default`, because `M.default` is not a > valid qvarid but I neglected to take into account the maximal munch rule. > > We have an open ticket for Haskell' about this: > > http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/QualifiedIdentifiers > which was until just now > inaccurate (I've now fixed it). I propose to fix GHC in 6.8 to match the > Haskell' proposal. If I understand correctly then the proposal would make e.g. foo = Bar.where a syntactically valid program, but one which would be guaranteed to fail to compile with a not-in-scope error? Wouldn't it be cleaner for it to be a lexical error? Unfortunately I'm not sure how to say this in the grammar; the best I can come up with is: program -> {lexeme | whitespace | error } error -> [ modid . ] reservedid Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
