Ketil Z. Malde
ketil at ii.uib.no
Fri Sep 26 09:59:12 EDT 2003
Brandon Michael Moore <brandon at its.caltech.edu> writes:
> Or was that supposed to be composition of a constructor with a function, A
> . f? Function composition, and higher order functions in general are
> likely to confuse an imperative programmer, but I think there isn't much
> syntax can do there.
I think there is a problem with too much overloaded syntax. Perhaps
it is time to put non-ASCII characters to good use?
For instance, function composition could use the degree sign: °
and leave the . for module qualification.
Template Haskell could use double-angle quotation marks: « »
and the section sign: §
and avoid clashing with list comprehensions and the function
Implicit parameters could use an inverted question mark: ¿
And so on, just look for places where the semantics depend on spaces
in the right (or wrong) place.
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
More information about the Haskell-Cafe