Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Thu, 30 Jan 92 19:28:07 GMT
Posted-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 92 12:22:11 CST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
I agree with Kevin Hammond when he points out that the syntactic
differences between legal and illegal LHSes are subtle. This appears
to be yet another of a growing num
> Kevin's argument that a context free grammare(*) is our best tool to express
> what the difference between an LHS and an RHS is seems very weak.
> The restrictions on an LHS properly belong to the world of *abstract* syntax.
My point was really that a formal mechanism for expressing concrete
sy
I've been looking at the syntax of LHSes with Brian Boutel.
These are essentially the same for both Haskell 1.1 and 1.2.
As stated in the reports, the syntax is very irregular, allowing
parentheses in some circumstances, but not in others. The result seems
quite arbitrary.
f = ...
