[Haskell-cafe] GHC Extension Proposal: ArgumentBlock
vagarenko at gmail.com
Tue Sep 8 12:36:12 UTC 2015
If we didn't have $ operator in the first place, we'd use parentheses
foo (bar (baz (qux (quux (do a <- b; return a)))))
under your proposal it turns to:
foo (bar (baz (qux (quux do a <- b; return a))))
foo (bar baz) (qux quux) (do a <- b; return a)
turns to :
foo (bar baz) (qux quux) do a <- b; return a
foo (bar baz) (qux quux) (\x -> x)
foo (bar baz) (qux quux) \x -> x
Can't you see your proposal makes things *less *consistent, *not more*?
2015-09-07 0:03 GMT+06:00 Oliver Charles <ollie at ocharles.org.uk>:
> I mean that people us $ for purely syntactical purposes. If an editor is
> going to make refactorings and retain a certain sense of style, then the
> tool needs to know that $ is sometimes to be used. The refactoring (or
> otherwise) tool now has to be aware of the syntax of Haskell and special
> symbols in the Prelude.
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 6:53 PM Matthew Pickering <
> matthewtpickering at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I don't really like $ from an editor perspective though (tooling has to
>> > become aware of a single function when performing refactorings), so
>> > that helps reduce how prolific that operator is is a win in my book!
>> Can you please explain what you mean by this? Is there something more
>> subtle that $ being a low fixity operator? Which specific problems
>> does it cause tooling? Are you referring to the fact that there are
>> problems because $ == id and makes tooling account for two cases when
>> looking for refactorings? (I'm thinking of hlint here).
>> (FWIW, haskell-src-exts tries to fiddle with the AST to account for
>> fixity after parsing but the GHC parser does not, it happens during
>> renaming. There is a pure version here if anyone else is in need of
>> this feature).
>> Thanks, Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe