Syntax for implicit parameters

[Simon Peyton-Jones]

I only added 'with' because I did not want to steal *two* new keywords.
One is bad enough!   I proposed using 'let' (not dlet), with the '?' to
distinguish dynamic from lexical bindings, but did not achieve
consensus.

Lack of consensus =3D> the status quo stays. =20

My order of preference:

1. [happy]. Use 'let'
2. [consent].  Use 'dlet' or 'with'
3. [hate]  Use both 'dlet' and 'with'

Would the Hugs folk be willing to adopt (2)?

Simon

| -----Original Message-----
| From: Alastair Reid [mailto:reid@cs.utah.edu]
| Sent: 18 April 2001 18:31
| To: hugs-bugs@haskell.org; glasgow-haskell-bugs@haskell.org
| Subject: Syntax for implicit parameters
|=20
|=20
|=20
| Some months ago, there was talk about making sure GHC and Hugs use the
| same syntax for implicit parameters and (most importantly) that that
| syntax should not introduce the keyword "with".
|=20
| As far as I can see (from looking at both parsers and trying
| examples), this discussion has not been acted on.  Hugs seems to
| allow:
|=20
|   dlet ?x =3D 'a' in ?x + 1
|   ?x + 1 with ?x =3D 'a'
|=20
| and GHC 5.0 only seems to support:
|=20
|   ?x + 1 with ?x =3D 'a'
|=20
| Can the GHC people, the Hugs people and the implicit parameter
| designers come to some sort of agreement and implement the result? =20
|=20
|=20
| --=20
| Alastair Reid        reid@cs.utah.edu       =20
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~reid/

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-bugs@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs