Proposal: require spaces around the dot operator
anthony_clayden at clear.net.nz
Mon Feb 13 09:07:37 CET 2012
Gábor Lehel <illissius at ...> writes:
> In any case, while I would in theory support spaces around all
> operators, modulo counterexamples such as those presented above, I'm
> not proposing it and I don't think anyone is, so it's probably best to
> stick to discussing spaces around (.) (which I also support).
> Apologies for taking the discussion off topic.
I'm not arguing for or against dot (and postfix) as record selector.
I'm not arguing whther or not we should support postfix record selector
(whatever the syntax/symbol).
But _if_ we want postfix, we need to be sure that it binds tighter than
function apply. Some examples (from TDNR observations on 'something odd',
and using `?' as postfix field symbol):
map toUpper customer?lastName
desugar to ===> map toUpper (lastName customer)
===> (lookup m) key
No other operator binds tighter than even function apply.
So I think the best way to show that is to disallow spaces around the
symbol. "It graphically appeals to the notion of a [name] composed of
several [name]s." As one poster didn't quite put it.
So the advantage of dot from that point of view is:
* dot already appears tightly-bound in qualified names
* dot is already a reserved operator,
so we won't have to search for some other candidate
More information about the Haskell-prime