At 05:25 PM 5/25/2001 -0400, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
>Admittedly, this is different from how haskell type checks now. I guess
>the question is whether it is impossible to type check or whether it just
>requires modification to the type checking algorithm. Does anyone know?
I don't thi
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Zhanyong Wan wrote:
> As you explained, the parse of an expression depends the types of the
> sub-expressions, which imo is BAD. Just consider type inference...
Ok, your complaint is that f a b c=a b c could have type
(a->b->c)->a->b->c or type (b->c)->(a->b)->a->c depending
"S. Alexander Jacobson" wrote:
>
> Does anyone know why the haskell designers did not make the syntax
> right associative? It would clean up a lot of stuff.
>
> Haskell Non-Haskell
> Left AssociativeRight Associative
> foo (bar (baz (x)))
Does anyone know why the haskell designers did not make the syntax
right associative? It would clean up a lot of stuff.
Haskell Non-Haskell
Left AssociativeRight Associative
foo (bar (baz (x))) foo bar baz x
foo $ bar $
