Proposal: change to qualified operator syntax

[haskell at henning-thielemann.de]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, haskell at henning-thielemann.de wrote:

> I like to note that I'm against this proposal. The example given in
>  http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/QualifiedOperators
> namely [Red..] can be easily resolved by adding a space, thus [Red ..]. I 
> use qualified operators occasionally, since I use NumericPrelude and thus 
> have to import some things from Prelude in a qualified way. As there will 
> appear more and more infix operators in libraries along with more name 
> clashes (e.g. recently discussed List.++ and Monoid.++), qualified operator 
> names will become not so uncommon. Of course, to keep the spirit of infix 
> operators, you will better define custom operators locally, but this is only 
> reasonable if you use an infix operator more than once.
> The current syntax is also in a way consistent, since e.g. (+) coincides 
> with a two side operator section, which is no longer true with the new 
> proposal.

Should the consistency with operator section also be added as 'cons' to
   http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/QualifiedOperators
  ?

> Also (...) and `...` are dual, which is a nice property.