On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Henrik Nilsson <henrik.nils...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote: > No, it would often (or even usually) not be that much more work, but it > is replacing a very simple and useful mechanism that has worked very > well for two decades with something more complicated, somewhat less > nice, breaking a not insignificant amount of code in the process, for > not much gain as far as I can see.
Fair enough, works for me. On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:01 PM, brandon s allbery kf8nh <allber...@gmail.com> wrote: > There's a conflict between \SOA and \SO followed by A, which is resolved by > making the latter \SO\&A. Presumably you mean \SOH? "\xe\x1" is unambiguous. On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Edward Kmett <ekm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Implementing the string escapes falls to a small handful of us who write > compilers or tools for working with Haskell, but the proposal seems to be to > just randomly discard functionality that isn't particularly hard to > implement or all that exotic by comparison with other languages. Ok, good enough for me. As I mentioned, it does cause bugs, at least it did for me. Admittedly only one though. _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
