infixed implicit parameters

Jeffrey R Lewis
Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:56:53 -0700

On Monday 29 July 2002 02:56 am, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Reasonable suggestion, and not hard to implement.
> Definitions are more troublesome.  Currently implicit parameter
> bindings must be of the form
> =09?x =3D e
> I.e. no pattern-matching, function defintions etc.   Changing this woul=
> be quite a bit more work.
> One could imagine
> a) status quo
> b) allow infix application, but keep binding syntactically restricted
> c) allow arbitrary binding forms (pattern matching etc)
> I think (b) is defensible; I don't think (c) is worth the work.  But I
> would
> prefer to do (b) in sync with Hugs.  Let's see what they think.

This falls into the category of things that I can't get too excited about=

I'll take b) as Simon's proposal, and will support it.