ACM PPDP 2008 - Call For Papers
10th ACM-SIGPLAN* International Symposium on
Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming
Valencia, Spain, July 15-17, 2008
http
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 08:01:07AM -0500, Cale Gibbard wrote:
> I also like this idea. Retaining the ability to treat selection as a
> function easily is quite important, and this meets that criterion
> nicely. Also, in which case does this cause a program to break? It
> seems that you're only rein
Ouch. How would a human parse [apple'*'pear]
If this doesn't immediately scan as [ (*') (apple') (pear) ] to you (it
doesn't to me) then maybe allowing ' in infix operators may not be the
best thing.
John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 08:01:07AM -0500, Cale Gibbard wrote:
I also li
On 8 Feb 2008, at 4:43 PM, Dan Weston wrote:
Ouch. How would a human parse [apple'*'pear]
In this context, `parse error, tricky syntax'.
In general? Not as sure.
jcc
___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/list
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 04:43:43PM -0800, Dan Weston wrote:
> Ouch. How would a human parse [apple'*'pear]
>
> If this doesn't immediately scan as [ (*') (apple') (pear) ] to you (it
> doesn't to me) then maybe allowing ' in infix operators may not be the best
> thing.
Oh, I was thinking they wo
[hm. should this discussion move to -cafe?]
On Feb 8, 2008, at 20:15 , Jonathan Cast wrote:
On 8 Feb 2008, at 4:43 PM, Dan Weston wrote:
Ouch. How would a human parse [apple'*'pear]
In this context, `parse error, tricky syntax'.
I kinda have that problem anyway given ' being permitted in
