[Haskell-cafe] Automatic fixity allocation for symbolic
operators
Nicolas Frisby
nicolas.frisby at gmail.com
Sat Oct 14 15:24:35 EDT 2006
Perhaps the editor could assume a default precedence when the
user-defined precedence is not yet available. Preferably, the editor
would also somehow yell at the user to indicate that it is making such
an assumption.
I think it's unreasonable to tie programmers' hands for the sake of
off-loading rather trivial tasks to editors.
Nick
On 10/14/06, Bertram Felgenhauer <bertram.felgenhauer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Brian Hulley wrote:
> > infixr 9 . !! 9 9.9
> > infixr 8 ^, ^^, ** 8 8.8 7.7
> > infixl 7 *, /, 7 7
> > infixl 6 +, - 6 6
> > infixr 5 : , ++ 5 6.6
> > infix 4 ==, /=, <, <=, >=, > 4.4 7.4 1 1.4 1.4 1
> > infixr 3 && 3.3
> > infixr 2 || 2.2
> > infixl 1 >>, >>= 1.1 1.14
> > infixr 1 =<< 1.14
> > infixr 0 $, $! 0 0.9
>
> Ouch.
>
> Really, the first priority in the language should be human readability.
> Looking up a fixity isn't that hard, but remembering a rule like this
> is pretty awful. You also restrict the freedom of library designers
> for no good reason. Precedences aren't usually random ...
>
> As far as editors go I have little sympathy. I also see nothing wrong
> with forcing a coder to have at least a module stub that defines its
> interface and the operator precedences, to make the parsing work
> reliably. You'll have to deal with the case where parsing fails anyway,
> and it shouldn't be too hard between failures due to unsufficient
> information (which shouldn't be tagged as errors, but maybe give some
> other indication) and real errors.
>
> Bertram
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
More information about the Haskell-Cafe
mailing list