> Yes, I think it's a fine idea to loosen up the syntax and allow import and
> infix anywhere. But could someone clarify what the intent is with regards to
> the scoping of liberally sprinkled imports/infixes?
I've added a clarification; my intent was that all import and
fixity declarations wou
"Jeffrey R. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought the if-the-else proposal seemed odd until I followed the link
> and read the exact proposal. Simon: your if-then-else example on the
> Standard Haskell page seems at odds with the actual proposal (e.g. isn't
> the point that the `else' i
"Jeffrey R. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, I think it's a fine idea to loosen up the syntax and allow import and
> infix anywhere. But could someone clarify what the intent is with regards to
> the scoping of liberally sprinkled imports/infixes?
Sorry - we should have made this clear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> * import and infix declarations anywhere in a module?
>
> I am against this proposal. Collecting all such declarations
> at the head of the module is better for human readers. Allowing
> them anywhere would also complicate and slow down program analysis
> th
On 7 Aug, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> * maximal munch and comments
>
> Explicitly allowing operators such as --- and --> is not just
> a clarification; it is a change in the comment convention. (cf. p8 of
> the 1.4 report `The sequence -- immediately terminates a symbol ...')
right, and a
> "Colin" == Colin Runciman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Colin> * the name!
Colin> Names including a date, like Haskell 98, or a specific use,
Colin> like Teaching Haskell, could mislead. Standard Haskell 1 is
Colin> rather long (and ambiguous). The reasons why Haskell 1.5
Colin> sug
* the name!
Names including a date, like Haskell 98, or a specific use,
like Teaching Haskell, could mislead. Standard Haskell 1 is
rather long (and ambiguous). The reasons why Haskell 1.5
suggests greater stability than Haskell 1.4 are too obscure.
So if Standard Haskell says too mu
Jeffrey R. Lewis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > * import and infix declarations anywhere in a module?
> It would seem that if we allow infix decls anywhere, shouldn't we be
> loosening up the location of import decls also?
>
Umm... you probably already figured out that my above comment
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> * import and infix declarations anywhere in a module?
>
> I am against this proposal. Collecting all such declarations
> at the head of the module is better for human readers. Allowing
> them anywhere would also complicate and slow down program analysis
> that
