Proposal: ArgumentDo

[Ryan Trinkle]

Akio,

Yes, definitely!  I think I was a bit unclear, but what I was trying to say
was that, in the (rare) circumstances in which I'm editing Haskell without
the benefit of syntax highlighting, the difference between keywords and
identifiers is not quite as obvious.  In those cases, requiring an operator
may make things easier to read.

This is a very small point, but I appreciate you taking the time to respond!


Ryan

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Akio Takano <tkn.akio at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
> On 7 July 2016 at 19:40, Ryan Trinkle <ryan.trinkle at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm very on the fence on this topic, but one point i haven't seen
> mentioned
> > is the influence of syntax highlighting on this.  My guess is that I
> would
> > like this extension when I have syntax highlighting available and would
> > dislike it when I do not.
>
> vim and hscolour can highlight code with the new syntax just fine. I
> imagine that most existing syntax highlighter will be able to deal
> with the new syntax without needing to be updated, because they
> usually don't attempt to fully parse expressions: they mostly just
> pattern-match on tokens.
>
> - Akio
>
> >
> > Also, I agree with Carter about the record update syntax - I find it
> harder
> > to parse visually than most other parts of the language, and I expect I'd
> > find curly brace syntax for inline 'do' harder to parse in a similar way.
> > On the other hand, maybe I should get used to both...
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Joachim Breitner <
> mail at joachim-breitner.de>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Am Donnerstag, den 07.07.2016, 13:15 -0400 schrieb Carter Schonwald:
> >> > agreed -1,
> >> > ambiguity is bad for humans, not just parsers.
> >> >
> >> > perhaps most damningly,
> >> > > f do{ x } do { y }
> >> >
> >> > is just reallly really weird/confusing to me,
> >>
> >> It is weird to me, but in no way confusing under the simple new rules,
> >> and I am actually looking forward to using that, and also to reading
> >> code with that.
> >>
> >> In fact, everything I wanted to pass two arguments in do-notation to a
> >> function I felt at a loss. The prospect of itemizing multiple large
> >> arguments to a function by writing
> >>
> >> someFunctionWithManyArguments
> >>   do firstArgument
> >>   do second Argument which may span
> >>        several lines
> >>   do third Argument
> >>
> >> is actually making me happy! It feels like going from XML to YAML...
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >> Joachim
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
> >>   mail at joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> >>   XMPP: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
> >>   Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> >> Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
> >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> > Glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20160710/237b2ee7/attachment-0001.html>