Second draft of the Haskell 2010 report available

[Simon Marlow]

On 08/07/2010 10:02, Christian Maeder wrote:
> Simon Marlow schrieb:
>> On 07/07/10 16:56, Christian Maeder wrote:
>>> Simon Marlow schrieb:
>>>> prefix negation should move to lexp to
>>>> be consistent with lpat
>>>
>>> prefix negation should not move to lexp, because this would rule out
>>> "- 1 ^ 2" as negated infix expression "- (1 ^ 2)",
>>
>> It wouldn't - remember the grammar just parses infix expressions as a
>> list, they get rearranged by fixity resolution.
>>
>> I'm arguing that the current grammar is halfway between two consistent
>> positions: one in which prefix negation is lexp, the other is your
>> proposal to make the grammar ambiguous.  So we should do one or the other.
>
> How about a rule like:
>
>    infixexp ->  [-] lexp { qop [-] lexp }
>
> to stress the sequence of tokens for fixity resolution and to avoid the
> impressions of wrong trees (as moving "-" into lexp would).

Yes, that's better.

>>> whereas a negated
>>> infix pattern is impossible. Unary minus is no constructor and cannot be
>>> defined. The latter should be (or is already?) mentioned somewhere.
>
> It should be mentioned in the report that the strongly binding prefix
> minus in patterns can be rejected by fixity resolution! Otherwise it is
> not clear if accepting "-1 * -2" (as pattern) is a (ghc) bug or an
> accidental (language) feature.

If we changed patterns in the same way as you suggest for expressions 
above, then this would become clearer, right?

Cheers,
	Simon



> Cheers Christian
>
>>>
>>> You could move prefix negation to lexp, if you allow the fixity
>>> resolution to construct negated infix expression that are not covered by
>>> the grammar (as currently happens anyway).
>>
>> Right, that's what I'm saying.  No change needed to fixity resolution,
>> just move prefix negation into lexp.
>>
>>> Moving prefix negation from lpat to pat to be consistent with infixexp
>>> would be overkill, though.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>      Simon