Special treatment of family and role in the parser

Richard Eisenberg eir at cis.upenn.edu
Thu Jan 21 15:12:30 UTC 2016

My opinion is that if we can avoid stealing syntax, we should. I am indeed concerned about complicating the parser overmuch... but I don't think that parser code complexity should, by itself, drive the language design.


On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:50 AM, Jan Stolarek <jan.stolarek at p.lodz.pl> wrote:

> I'll take a look at the parser, see if we can do better.
>> I also suggest that keywords introduced by GHC extensions should be lexed as keywords regardless
>> of  whether extension is enabled or not: this way users won't get spurious errors if they
>> suddenly enable extension and it turns out that some of their identifiers have become keywords.
> I would be cautious here. Patch I am working on right now will use "kind" as a reserved 
> identifier. It will only be allowed after `data` keyword. Making it a reserved word everywhere 
> would be a major issue as many people doing type-level programming have variables named "kind". 
> You ar right that problem would be much smaller if the keyword was "datakind" but somehow I am 
> reluctant to seeing things like "datakindmember", "typeinstance", etc. What others think about 
> this proposal?
> Janek
> ---
> Politechnika Łódzka
> Lodz University of Technology
> Treść tej wiadomości zawiera informacje przeznaczone tylko dla adresata.
> Jeżeli nie jesteście Państwo jej adresatem, bądź otrzymaliście ją przez pomyłkę
> prosimy o powiadomienie o tym nadawcy oraz trwałe jej usunięcie.
> This email contains information intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.
> If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this message in error,
> please notify the sender and delete it from your system.

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list