Simon Peyton-Jones schrieb:
> Yes, I somewhat hacked up the rules for ! in an ad-hoc way. I really wanted
> to allow
>
> f !x !y = (x,y)
>
> which meant a bit of fiddling, because LHSs are parsed as terms, so this is
> parsed as
>
> (f ! x) ! y
>
> (ie as infix operators) and I h
On 10/07/2010 22:02, John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 09:33:52AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 08/07/2010 09:45, John Meacham wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 07:09:29AM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
(ie as infix operators) and I have to squizzle around to re-interpret them as
pre
BTW, here's a related proposal made by Simon PJ earlier this year:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/NegationBindsTightly
please consider merging the proposals, or at least clearly identifying
the differences, if any.
Cheers,
Simon
On 12/07/2010 08:40, Christian Maed
Simon Marlow schrieb:
> BTW, here's a related proposal made by Simon PJ earlier this year:
>
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/NegationBindsTightly
>
> please consider merging the proposals, or at least clearly identifying
> the differences, if any.
Thanks for pointing this ou
Hi,
I'm asking for support of:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/PrefixMinusResolution
Cheers Christian
Simon Marlow schrieb:
> BTW, here's a related proposal made by Simon PJ earlier this year:
>
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/NegationBindsTightly
>
> p
I'm asking for support of:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/PrefixMinusResolution
Just to note that nhc98 appears to fulfill the outcome of this
resolution algorithm already, with the exception of example x7, which
is parsed as -(4#5).
However, nhc98 goes further and perm
On Jul 13, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Christian Maeder wrote:
I'm asking for support of:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/PrefixMinusResolution
The wording in
The operator to the left of prefix -, if there is one, is ignored.
is unfortunate. Said operator is not *ignored* in t
