Composition operator [was: Re: Records in Haskell]
Morten.Brodersen at constrainttec.com
Fri Jan 13 05:16:40 CET 2012
Even if Unicode is not required, there is still a fallout. Let's look at
a simple scenario:
Somebody uploads a nice useful Haskell module that include a number of
Unfortunately most unix/windows/tools/source controls/editors out there
are Ascii only.
So people who wants to use the module now potentially need to convert
the code to Ascii (and potentially back again) in order to use it with
Yes it is *of course* doable but all of that just because of a
*relatively" simple problem to do with how you access record fields? Really?
That is IMHO a clear example of shooting birds with nuclear rockets.
Let me suggest that a simple non-nuclear alternative would be for people
interested in Unicode symbols to use an editor that auto converts from
Haskell Ascii to Haskell Unicode when loading and (of course) back again
when saving. You can do that today. You can even pick your own Ascii
from/to Unicode mapping. No need to argue about whether a symbol is
prettier than another. All of this without forcing the rest of the
(couldn't care less about record access syntax) Haskell community to
have to deal with Unicode :-)
On 13/01/12 14:43, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 22:32, Morten Brodersen
> <Morten.Brodersen at constrainttec.com
> <mailto:Morten.Brodersen at constrainttec.com>> wrote:
> Requiring unicode characters for the Haskell syntax to solve a
> *relatively* simple problem is a bad bad idea.
> Nobody said anything about requiring it.
> brandon s allbery allbery.b at gmail.com <mailto: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