2 Aug
2002
2 Aug
'02
11:56 a.m.
On Monday 29 July 2002 02:56 am, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Reasonable suggestion, and not hard to implement.
Definitions are more troublesome. Currently implicit parameter bindings must be of the form ?x = e I.e. no pattern-matching, function defintions etc. Changing this would be quite a bit more work.
One could imagine
a) status quo b) allow infix application, but keep binding syntactically restricted c) allow arbitrary binding forms (pattern matching etc)
I think (b) is defensible; I don't think (c) is worth the work. But I would prefer to do (b) in sync with Hugs. Let's see what they think.
This falls into the category of things that I can't get too excited about ;-) I'll take b) as Simon's proposal, and will support it. --Jeff