ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org
Sun Jul 26 13:52:26 EDT 2009
Sean Leather wrote:
> To me, the syntax is not actually stricter, just that the precedence for
> labeled field construction, update, & pattern is lower. What is the
> effective new precedence with this change? Previously, it was 11 (or simply
> "higher than 10"). Is it now equivalent to function application (10)?
maybe it's equivalent "infix 10" (not infixr/infixl) so that it doesn't
associate with function application (or itself) at all, either left- or
right- ly. I didn't understand by reading the patch to the report...
Ian Lynagh wrote:
> I think that even an example of where parentheses are needed would be
> noise in the report. I don't think the report generally gives examples
> for this sort of thing, e.g. I don't think there's an example to
> demonstrate that this is invalid without parentheses:
> id if True then 'a' else 'b'
Well that's also something that in my opinion there *should* be an
example for, because IMHO there's no obvious reason why it's banned
(whereas most of the Report's syntax repeats things that should be
obvious and necessary to anyone who knows Haskell).
More information about the Haskell-prime