class Function ?

[Marko Schütz]

Lloyd,

From: Lloyd Allison <lloyd@mail.csse.monash.edu.au>
Subject: class Function ?
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:54:30 +1100 (EST)

> Almost certainly this is either
>  . easy and obvious or
>  . unnecessary or
>  . impossible
> for some a well-known reason.  Which is it please?  ...
> 
> 
> I would like to have a ``class Function'' which has the
> operators ``$'', ``.'', etc. and *most* particularly ``'',
> so that one can define sub-classes of Function
> (e.g. functions having inverses, say) that can still
> be applied in the usual way,  i.e. ``f x''.

Maybe you would also find this proposal interesting:

Title             Wishlist: MixFix syntax
Current URL       http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell@haskell.org/msg04781.html

in particular

[..]
Having a type 

> newtype Subst = [Name :->: Term]
> instance Show Subst where
>   ...

and be able to write

> oper _ _ :: Subst -> Term -> Term where
>      sigma t = ...
[..]

Marko