Fractional precedences? Re: Operator precedence help

[David Feuer]

`seq` would be an issue too.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020, 3:11 PM Henning Thielemann <
lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> right
>
> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20200903/7ed38cea/attachment.html>