lexer puzzle

[Ketil Z. Malde]

Brandon Michael Moore <brandon at its.caltech.edu> writes:

> Or was that supposed to be composition of a constructor with a function, A
> . f? Function composition, and higher order functions in general are
> likely to confuse an imperative programmer, but I think there isn't much
> syntax can do there.

I think there is a problem with too much overloaded syntax.  Perhaps
it is time to put non-ASCII characters to good use?

For instance, function composition could use the degree sign: ° 
and leave the . for module qualification.

Template Haskell could use double-angle quotation marks: «  »  
and the section sign: §
and avoid clashing with list comprehensions and the function
application operator. 

Implicit parameters could use an inverted question mark: ¿

And so on, just look for places where the semantics depend on spaces
in the right (or wrong) place.

-kzm
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants