Proposal #173: The dot type operator, rec: accept

Hello, This proposal would extend the parser to allow the '.' character to appear in type operators, allowing one to write code like the following: ``` type (f . g) x = f (g x) foo :: (Maybe . Either Int) Bool foo = Just (Right True) ``` I recommend we accept the proposal, as it would resolve an odd inconsistency between the term and type languages. The main downside seems to be that combining a type-level '.' with a 'forall' is a bit hard to read, but I think the benefits of a more consistent syntax outweigh this concern. Eric

I'm ok with this in principle, and I can't seen any bad disadvantages in practice.
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-steering-committee

I'm in support as well. Richard
On Oct 9, 2018, at 4:45 PM, Eric Seidel
wrote: Hello,
This proposal would extend the parser to allow the '.' character to appear in type operators, allowing one to write code like the following:
``` type (f . g) x = f (g x)
foo :: (Maybe . Either Int) Bool foo = Just (Right True) ```
I recommend we accept the proposal, as it would resolve an odd inconsistency between the term and type languages. The main downside seems to be that combining a type-level '.' with a 'forall' is a bit hard to read, but I think the benefits of a more consistent syntax outweigh this concern.
Eric _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

Seems reasonable to me too.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:52 PM Richard Eisenberg
I'm in support as well.
Richard
On Oct 9, 2018, at 4:45 PM, Eric Seidel
wrote: Hello,
This proposal would extend the parser to allow the '.' character to appear in type operators, allowing one to write code like the following:
``` type (f . g) x = f (g x)
foo :: (Maybe . Either Int) Bool foo = Just (Right True) ```
I recommend we accept the proposal, as it would resolve an odd inconsistency between the term and type languages. The main downside seems to be that combining a type-level '.' with a 'forall' is a bit hard to read, but I think the benefits of a more consistent syntax outweigh this concern.
Eric _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 09.10.2018, 16:45 -0400 schrieb Eric Seidel:
I recommend we accept the proposal.
Accepted. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
participants (5)
-
Eric Seidel
-
Iavor Diatchki
-
Joachim Breitner
-
Richard Eisenberg
-
Simon Peyton Jones