Hi Tom > Well I still prefer my suggestion that all module names be separated > with ';' > > Foo.Bar.+.+ > > which is of course (Foo.Bar).(+.+). Note that this also works > correctly for local functions that are operators containing '.'. > For example > > Foo.Bar.200_+.+
Hmm, now I'm changing my mind. Those examples make me think that ; is more sensible - since otherwise you are really screwing with small differences in what makes an operator or not - I especially dislike the "leading digits" rule. I would rather that Core didn't care too much about operator vs function differences, but these two examples show it will have to. Therefore I think ; makes more sense. If we use ; we can also change it so: module Foo where foo = ... where bar = ... Foo;foo.bar - which is exactly what you would want, to keep as much info as possible. Of course, this change could be done sometime in the future. > I'll also leave out the import stuff for now, with a view that it's easy > enough to add it later if people do decide they do want it. The > conversion routine is going to generate the same information in either > case, it's just whether it gets put in the core structure or not. Agreed, ditto with the primitive stuff. Thanks Neil _______________________________________________ Yhc mailing list Yhc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/yhc
