[Haskell-cafe] Proposal: Shorter Import Syntax
cma at bitemyapp.com
Sun Jun 7 01:43:59 UTC 2015
Why guess when we could test this? This is a bit of syntax and it has
equivalents in other programming languages, so there's no reason in
principle why we couldn't just make a multiple choice quiz. Have
programmers that haven't ever used Haskell before declare what languages
they know, take the quiz, then we see what does and doesn't confuse them.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Anthony Cowley <acowley at seas.upenn.edu>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Alexander Kjeldaas
> <alexander.kjeldaas at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Vlatko Basic <vlatko.basic at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Maybe a slightly changed syntax like this could be less confusing
> >> import Data.Map (Map) andAs M (...)
> >> or
> >> import Data.Map (Map) and as M (...)
> >> It is clear (IMHO) what is coming from where, and both lists are at the
> >> end of their part, so can be written nicely in several rows, if needed.
> >> import Data.Map (Map)
> >> andAs M (lengthy,
> >> list)
> >> Parser can also easily distinguish between the current and the new
> >> so they can coexist, so no backward compatibility problem.
> > I much prefer a syntax with a bit more words, like this one. The
> > proposal is simply impossible to understand without reading a manual. It
> > has at least two equally valid interpretations.
> > Adding one or two words like in this examples makes it possible, without
> > reading a manual, to distinguish between possible interpretations. I
> > that must be a minimal requirement for such a syntax extension. Nobody
> > needs to hire a language lawyer to understand a python import statement.
> > That shouldn't be needed for Haskell either.
> > Alexander
> Thanks for the feedback, Vlatko, Alexander, and Kosyrev! I would like
> the syntax to avoid being overly hostile to newcomers, so some tweaks
> are certainly possible.
> So that I understand, you believe that a newcomer could read
> import Data.Map (Map) andAs M (lengthy)
> and infer which names are qualified and which aren't without
> consulting a manual, whereas without the "and" it would be "impossible
> to understand"? I confess I find that hard to believe, but I'll bear
> it in mind in case this option picks up wider support. There are
> already three of you on board, so it's off to a good start.
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
Currently working on http://haskellbook.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe