Bang patterns

[Edward Kmett]

On the topic of liberalizing operators that are currently only used in
patterns, another one that would be amazing to have as a valid term (or
type operator) is @ using similar () tricks. 1 character operator names are
in dreadful short supply and really help make nice DSLs.

-Edward

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Ian Lynagh <ian at well-typed.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 07:26:16PM -0500, Edward Kmett wrote:
> > If space sensitivity or () disambiguation is being used on !, could one
> of
> > these also be permitted on ~ to permit it as a valid infix term-level
> > operator?
>
> I don't think there's any reason ~ couldn't be an operator, defined with
> the
>     (~) x y = ...
> syntax.
>
> Allowing it to be defined with infix syntax would be a little trickier.
>
>
> Hmm, I've just realised that if we decide to make !_ and !foo lexemes,
> then we'd also want !(+) to be a lexeme, which presumably means we'd
> want (+) to be a single lexeme too (and also `foo`, for consistency).
> But I don't think making that change would be problematic.
>
>
> Thanks
> Ian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/attachments/20130205/a082b1fb/attachment.htm>