Qualified identifiers opinion

Christian Maeder Christian.Maeder at dfki.de
Mon Aug 20 04:59:09 EDT 2007

Christian Maeder wrote:
> Stefan O'Rear wrote:
>> What's wrong with the status quo?  Our current lexical rules *seem*
>> complicated to newbies, but just like everything else in Haskell it
>> carries a deep simplicity; having only one rule (maximal-munch) gives a
>> certain elegance that the proposals all lack.
> I'm quite in favour of "maximal munch", but after munching "Foo." or
> "Foo.where" saying:
>   Sorry I've munched too much, I meant to munch only "Foo" and "."
> (because Foo is a data constructor) or "Foo.wher" and "e" (because
> "where" is a keyword)
> carries "simplicity", to "deep" for me.

Apologies, if the above sounded rude. In fact, I just realized that the
tokenizer can decide what to do with "Foo." or "Foo.wher" when seeing
the next character. However, it is not helpful at all, when the lexer
passes "Foo.wher" and "e" to the type checker. The programmers's input
deserves more respect.


More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list