George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm writing, but that shouldn't be too hard to tweak. In particular I have
> followed SML in using "." to express qualification by something, even though
> Haskell already used "." for something else, because I can't be bothered right
> now to dig up a better symbol.
This is why all non S-exp like lanaguage are doomed to progressive
syntactic cancer as the useful parts of operator name space and syntax
space become progressively polluted and mutated by one fad after
another.
--
Julian Assange |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people
|together to collect wood or assign them tasks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
