Simon Marlow marlowsd at
Sat Feb 13 14:37:36 EST 2010

On 08/02/10 23:04, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 01:24:55PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
>> What would be the actual change proposed? If it is something concrete
>> and not something like "negatives should be interpreted as unary minus
>> when otherwise it would lead to a parse error" then that wouldn't be
>> good. I have enough issues with the layout rule as is :)
> I imagine it would be something like deleting the production
>      lexp6    ->       - exp7
> and adding the production
>      exp10    ->       - fexp

Remember that Haskell 2010 changed things here, so that production no 
longer exists:

the equivalent change can be made in the new formulation, of course, and 
would probably simplify it.


More information about the Haskell-prime mailing list