new keyword: infixlr?

Nick Bowler nbowler at
Mon Sep 13 10:23:05 EDT 2010

On 2010-09-10 19:13 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> When first reading the proposal, I thought the idea was to allow the
> compiler to more easily perform optimisations like
>     a+b+c+2+3+d => a+b+c+5+d

Of course, since I don't think fixity can be specified per-instance of
Num, one would not be able to use this proposal for this; not all Num
instances have an associative (+).

Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (

More information about the Haskell-prime mailing list