Syntax dubion

[Jon . Fairbairn]

if I write

(a &&& b) x = a x && b x

hugs accepts it, but ghc rejects it.  I think that ghc is correct in
that the report only allows 

 funlhs 
            -> 
               var apat {apat } 
            | 
               pati+1 varop(a,i) pati+1 
            | 
               lpati varop(l,i) pati+1 
            | 
               pati+1 varop(r,i) rpati 

ie no () and no extra arguments, but given that one may want to define
higher order functions this way, we ought to make the language allow it.

Can anyone argue against it?

-- 
Jon Fairbairn                                 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
18 Kimberley Road                                        [EMAIL PROTECTED]