Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 12.12.2019, 09:44 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones.
f r.x A. The proposal says it means (f (r.x)) B. Joachim wants it to mean ((f r).x)
to give credit where credit is due, this wasn’t my idea: I came to that conclusion after reading Eric’s mail on this list (from Tue, 10 Dec 2019 22:27:57 -0500) and Chris Done’s nice summary and digestion of Eric’s mail as posted in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/282#issuecomment-5644658... I expect the ability to freely add whitespace on (at least) one side of a dot, without changing the meaning, is also advantageous to be able to lay out code nicely. It seems we gain a lot (e.g. chaining with argument) if we let go of of the desire to not have to parenthesize non-atomic arguments (in `f (r.x) (s.x)`), which we otherwise _always_ do in Haskell (as in `f (x!!5) (y!!5)`). Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/