OK, I see. By "functional," you meant "related to function application,
composition, etc.", not a general mechanism for introducing new infix
operators.
If you (or anyone else) want to experiment with tweaking src/urweb.grm
to add some new operators, I'll be happy to accept a patch embodying
tasteful choices. :) (May also require adding to lib/ur/top.ur[s] new
definitions of conventionally named functions, to which the new
operators desugar.)
On 02/11/2015 11:41 AM, Gabriel Riba wrote:
Adam Chlipala <adamc <at> csail.mit.edu> writes:
On 02/11/2015 11:04 AM, Gabriel Riba wrote:
A functional language cannot lack functional infix operators :)
They enhance code readability and save parenthesis.
Could you please clarify whether your message is meant to convey a
feature request and, if so, exactly what that request is?
It is a feature request and a discussion proposal, because the symbols have
to be chosen if not yet done.
The most graphical appeling are the ones used by FSharp because the offer
symetry in respect to the application direction.
But you may claim some ML tradition and pick the OCaml ones.
I thought that to include this few operators in the grammar was feasible but
I cannot foresee the error messaging implications.
_______________________________________________
Ur mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
