On 30/12/2011, Andriy Polischuk
You're right, i should have written "ambiguities" instead. That was not joke, just i somehow didn't notice Chris Smith answer.
Hm. I though at first that if backslash were the selection operator, then there must be programs of unclear semantics, but actually I can't find any. I'm sorry if my earlier message seemed unkind, by the way; it wasn't meant to be.
However, I think, there are some drawbacks in using dot for that in comparison with qualified imports access. The latter is easier to distinguish from composition by eye, because module-identifier is always one word, starting from uppercase letter (which, moreover, in many editors is highlighted differently). But in field access left operand is not always atomic - it can be expression.
Consider this example: quux (y . (foo >.< bar).baz (f . g)) moo It's not that easy to distinguish from quux (y . (foo >.< bar) . baz (f . g)) moo
Yeah, that's why I dislike dot as compose operator (^_~)
Matthew Farkas-Dyck wrote
Certainly not no conflicts: lambda expressions.
-- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Records-in-Haskell-tp4806095p5111428.ht... Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Backslash is a possibility then, it seems, but in my opinion breaks the principle of least surprise, i.e. "I can't believe it's not lambda!" Cheers, Matthew Farkas-Dyck