On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Dan Doel <dan.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, I think ($) is the way it is specifically because 'runST $ ...' is > considered useful and common enough to warrant an ad-hoc solution. There > have been other ad-hoc solutions in the past, but redesigning inference to > not be ad-hoc about it would be very difficult at best. > > -- Dan Of the ad-hoc solutions available, I'd personally think the least surprising would be to make f $ x special syntax instead of an operator. The main tricky bit would be preserving source for error messages; the type checker would have to keep track, for each application, of whether it was a standard juxtaposition or whether it used $. _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell