Fractional precedences? Re: Operator precedence help

Henning Thielemann lemming at
Thu Sep 3 19:10:15 UTC 2020

On Thu, 3 Sep 2020, Tikhon Jelvis wrote:

> In the proposals for relative precedences that I've heard before, it 
> would be a syntactic error to use two operators that *don't* have 
> explicitly defined relationships without parentheses. + and * would work 
> together the way you would expect from math, but you simply wouldn't be 
> able to mix them with ++ without parentheses. Seems like this would 
> avoid spooky action at a distance since operators that aren't clearly 
> related simply don't have relative precedences at all.


> Not sure how to handle operators like $ in a system like that though.

($) in GHC is already an exception because it works with forall-quantified 
operands, too.

More information about the Libraries mailing list