lexical description problem in language report?

[Simon Peyton-Jones]

I agree with this proposal, and I will adopt it for H98.
Any objections?

Simon

| Similarly, in 4 and 4.4.2, we have
|=20
| 	gendecl -> fixity [digit] ops
|=20
| but digit isn't in the list of lexemes in 2.2 and B.2, nor is=20
| it reasonable for it to be there.  I suggest
|=20
| 	gendecl -> fixity [integer] ops
|=20
| with the value of the integer constrained to be between 0 and=20
| 9 inclusive. Incidentally, this is what GHC, Hugs and NHC do,=20
| in that they accept
|=20
| 	infix 0x0003 !$%
|=20
| as equivalent to
|=20
| 	infix 3 !$%
|=20
| presumably because doing what the Report says would be rather awkward.