Hi,
The lexical structure chapter defines the non-terminal uniSymbol as
uniSymbol ::= any Unicode symbol or punctuation
There is a slight ambiguity here: is that description supposed to
be parsed as:
(a) "Unicode (symbol or punctuation)", or
(b) "(Unicode symbol) or punctuation"?
If
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 14:08, Gabriel Dos Reis <
g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> The lexical structure chapter defines the non-terminal uniSymbol as
>
> uniSymbol ::= any Unicode symbol or punctuation
>
> There is a slight ambiguity here: is that description supposed to
> be parsed as
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 14:08, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>>
>> The lexical structure chapter defines the non-terminal uniSymbol as
>>
>> uniSymbol ::= any Unicode symbol or punctuation
>>
>> There is a slight ambiguity here: is that de
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 14:30, Gabriel Dos Reis <
g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> It is not clear what "the language's lexemes are defined in terms of
> Unicode properties"
> really means. Why would you need ascSmall (and similar ASCII
> character categories) then
> when you already have
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 14:30, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>>
>> It is not clear what "the language's lexemes are defined in terms of
>> Unicode properties"
>> really means. Why would you need ascSmall (and similar ASCII
>> character catego
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 15:20, Gabriel Dos Reis <
g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> I believe this part has seen very little change from the Revised
> Haskell 98 Report.
>
I was in fact looking at the Haskell 98 report at the time.
> It is not clear that it is an unintended leftover. Sec
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 15:20, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>>
>> I believe this part has seen very little change from the Revised
>> Haskell 98 Report.
>
>
> I was in fact looking at the Haskell 98 report at the time.
>
>>
>> It is not clear
>> no purpose to a completely overlapping category unless it is intended to
>> relate to an earlier standard (say Haskell 1.4).
I believe all Haskell Reports, even since 1.0, have specified that the language
"uses" Unicode. If it helps to bring perspective to this discussion, it is my
impressio
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>>> no purpose to a completely overlapping category unless it is intended to
>>> relate to an earlier standard (say Haskell 1.4).
>
> I believe all Haskell Reports, even since 1.0, have specified that the
> language "uses" Unicode. If it he
Hi Gaby,
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 06:29:24PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> OK, thanks! I guess a take away from this discussion is that what
> is a punctuation is far less well defined than it appears...
I'm not really sure what you're asking. Haskell's uniSymbol includes all
Unicode chara
Hello,
I am also not an expert but I got curious and did a bit of Wikipedia
reading. Based on what I understood, here are two (related) questions
that it might be nice to clarify in a future version of the report:
1. What is the alphabet used by the grammar in the Haskell report? My
understandin
the text library and Text data type have shown the worth in real world
Haskell usage with GHC.
I try to avoid String whenever possible, but I still have to deal with
conversions and other issues.
There is a lot of real work to be done to convert away from [Char],
but I think we need to take it out
On 17/03/12 11:44, Greg Weber wrote:
> the text library and Text data type have shown the worth in real world
> Haskell usage with GHC.
> I try to avoid String whenever possible, but I still have to deal with
> conversions and other issues.
> There is a lot of real work to be done to convert away f
13 matches
Mail list logo