[Haskell-cafe] Re: Current thinking on CompositionAsDot issue in haskell prime?

[Daniel Peebles]

Speaking of MagicHash, is it really necessary to take an operator with
"potential" like (#) just to keep primitive symbols separate from the rest?
At least from my 2010 Haskell learner perspective, it seems odd to create a
whole language extension/lexical change just for that purpose.

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:20 PM, wren ng thornton <wren at freegeek.org>wrote:

> On 10/28/10 10:42 AM, Ben Millwood wrote:
>
>> Here's the wiki page:
>> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/CompositionAsDot
>>
>> Personally I think function composition is what Haskell is all about
>> and it is absolutely essential that the syntax for it be lightweight.
>> If we think using . as qualification as well as composition is
>> confusing, I'm much more inclined to say using it as qualification was
>> a mistake.
>>
>> The comment on the wiki page about $ being more common in reality is
>> not even close to true for my own code, and I don't think I'm unusual
>> in that regard.
>>
>
> Agreed on both counts. Personally, I'd much rather have name qualification
> and record selection use a different character than to remove (.) as
> composition. And replacing (.) with some abomination like `o` is
> unthinkable.
>
> As for the selector character, I'm partial to # but that would clash with
> MagicHash.
>
> --
> Live well,
> ~wren
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20101029/0f0eae5e/attachment.html