Is there a consensus that there is a problem with this notation? Having no special syntax might work, especially with jEdit, where one can click on an unexpected constant to see what it refers to.
Larry > On 22 Sep 2015, at 15:21, Florian Haftmann > <florian.haftm...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de> wrote: > > The »op •« is infamous. Whatever you wish instead (my personal favorite > being no special syntax at all), problems include > a) to detect unintended printing behaviour > b) a suitable migration mechanisms > > Concerning b), one you could imagine things like > a) alternative declarations (infix(l/r)_new beside infix(l/r), > infix(l/r) beside infix(l/r)_old) > b) a flag to control the semantics of infix(l/r) > c) a flag combined with a data slot to modify existing mixfix > declarations afterwards also > > Personally I would appreciate some move here, but this only makes sense > if we agree what the goal is and whether it is worth the effort. > > Cheers, > Florian > > -- > > PGP available: > http://home.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/haftmann/pgp/florian_haftmann_at_informatik_tu_muenchen_de > > _______________________________________________ > isabelle-dev mailing list > isabelle-...@in.tum.de > https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev _______________________________________________ isabelle-dev mailing list isabelle-...@in.tum.de https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
