H98 Report: expression syntax glitch
Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:15:55 -0000
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 05:07:35PM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > On the other hand, one way to fix this problem *is* to specify the
> > relative precedence of 'let' & co. as compared to infix operators
> > (namely that 'let' should have a lower precedence). That would be a
> > reasonable fix for the H98 report, IMO.
> Except that it would break programs containing expressions like
> 1 + let x =3D 2 in e
> or (if you do the same for lambda)
> f $ \x -> e
> The old table had let (and if and lambda) in two places, which is
> more less what GHC/Hugs do, but not a mere clarification.
Yes *sigh* I hadn't noticed that the table had one precedence for =
"leftwards" and a different one for "rightwards". Nevertheless, the =
report needs clarifying on this point.