itz All this taken together, I mean, _really_, is the lexical
itz structure of Haskell a botch, or what?
Jon No. Innovative. All the problems described in this thread reflect
Jon unwarranted assumptions inherited in emacs. It's plainly possible
Jon to parse Haskell, and not hard either.
On Friday 08 February 2002 14:35, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
Jorge Adriano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Haskell looks nice... Isabell looks beautiful :-)
I'm not familiar with Isabell, but aren't we comparing apples and
oranges here? E.g. you can prettify .lhs pretty nicely with one of
the LaTeX
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 08:00:36AM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
I am new to the language (coming from ML) and I am sorry if my first
post turns out to be a flamebait, but I can't help it:
Why in the world did the designers of Haskell permit the ' character
to be both a prime (part of
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 08:38:22AM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
You miss my point: I agree that having a prime character for id's is
neat. But in SML, that's the _only_ role it has, character literals
are written like #x. With Haskell's characters (and Ocaml's :-( )
Ooops, yup... I forgot
Hal Since we're on this topic, I'm constantly annoyed by the
Hal following (in addition to sexps with '(' and ')'): how to get
Hal emacs to realize that it should match the parens on:
Hal map (\(x,y) - ...
Hal since \( isn't an escape character. i end up writing:
Hal map (\ (x,y) - ...
Hal
All this taken together, I mean, _really_, is the lexical structure of
Haskell a botch, or what?
No. Innovative. All the problems described in this thread
reflect unwarranted assumptions inherited in emacs. It's
plainly possible to parse Haskell, and not hard either.
Jón
--
Jón
brian If you think about languages that have been designed to be easy
brian to parse, are these really languages that you would want to
brian use?
No, but for different (semantical) reasons.
--
Ian Zimmerman, Oakland, California, U.S.A.
GPG: 433BA087 9C0F 194F 203A 63F7 B1B8 6E5A 8CA3 27DB
On 7 Feb 2002, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
itz All this taken together, I mean, _really_, is the lexical
itz structure of Haskell a botch, or what?
Jon No. Innovative. All the problems described in this thread reflect
Jon unwarranted assumptions inherited in emacs. It's plainly possible
Jon to
