Henrik.Nilsson at nottingham.ac.uk
Sat Jul 9 09:46:14 UTC 2016
On 07/09/2016 08:09 AM, C Maeder wrote:
> The asymmetry that you mention is already apparent for (Haskell98) infix
> expressions, i.e. when "composing" lambda- or if-expression:
> (if c then f else g) . \ x -> h x
> Parentheses around the last argument of "." do not matter, but
> parentheses around the first argument make a real difference
But that has to do with how grammatical ambiguity related to
in this case "if" and "lambda" are resolved by letting
the constructs extend as far as possible to the right.
This the standard way of resolving that kind of ambiguity
across a very wide range of programming languages and parsing
tools (e.g. preferring shift over reduce in an LR parser).
(And also in principle how lexical ambiguities are typically
resolved, sometimes referred to as the "maximal munch rule".)
In contrast, the present proposal suggests treating
different argument positions in grammatically
different ways (different non-terminals). As far as I know,
that is unprecedented. And in any case, it manifestly
complicates the grammar (more non-terminals) and as
a consequence adds another grammatical hurdle to
learning the language.
I think we often tend to forget just how exotic
Haskell syntax can be to the uninitiated. Which is
the vast majority of the rest of the programmer world
as well as beginners. Only the other week I gave a
presentation to a group of highly skilled developers
at a tech-savvy London-based company. The emphasis of
the talk was not at all on Haskell as such, but small
Haskell fragments did feature here and there, which I
(naively) thought would be mostly self explanatory.
Well, let's just say I was wrong.
Now, we can't make Haskell syntax less exotic (not that I'd
advocate that: I think basic Haskell syntax for the most part
strikes a pretty good balance on a number of counts), but we can
certainly avoid making it even more complicated and exotic.
Which the present proposal would, in my opinion.
School of Computer Science
The University of Nottingham
nhn at cs.nott.ac.uk
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.
Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the
author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nottingham.
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
permitted by UK legislation.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users