Composition operator [was: Re: Records in Haskell]
allbery.b at gmail.com
Fri Jan 13 03:09:50 CET 2012
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 19:38, Donn Cave <donn at avvanta.com> wrote:
> >> > Seems obvious to me: on the one hand, there should be a plain-ASCII
> >> > version of any Unicode symbol; on the other, the ASCII version has
> >> > shortcomings the Unicode one doesn't (namely the existing conflict
> >> > use as composition and use as module and now record qualifier). So,
> >> > Unicode one requires support but avoids weird parse issues.
> >> OK. To me, the first hand is all you need - if there should be a
> >> plain-ASCII version of any Unicode symbol anyway, then you can avoid
> >> some trouble by just recognizing that you don't need Unicode symbols
> >> (let alone with different parsing rules.)
> > What? The weird parsing rules are part of the ASCII one; it's what the
> > Unicode is trying to *avoid*. We're just about out of ASCII, weird
> > is going to be required at some point.
> What what? Are you not proposing to allow both ways to write
> composition, "." and "<unicode symbol>" at the same time, but
> with different syntactical requirements? Unicode characters as
> code would be bad enough, but mixing them with a hodge-podge of
> ASCII aliases with different parsing rules isn't going to win
> any prizes for elegance.
Backward compatibility is rarely elegant, and this is in any case
piggybacking on already existing (indeed, longstanding) parser horkage.
The point of the Unicode is a first step at getting away from said
horkage, which hopefully can be completed someday.
brandon s allbery allbery.b at gmail.com
wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users