Re: Composition operator [was: Re: Records in Haskell]

Actually, we don't need symbols at all, nor all these damned letters. The set of valid characters in an identifier can be of size 2: one each upper- and lower-case, e.g. [Pp]. For example, to define const function: p :: P (p (P pp p)); p pp _ = pp; where P is function type. If we drop all the symbols, and all numerals but [01], we could have a 6-bit character set! On 12/01/2012, Donn Cave wrote:

...

Quoth Brandon Allbery , ... Seems obvious to me: on the one hand, there should be a plain-ASCII version of any Unicode symbol; on the other, the ASCII version has shortcomings the Unicode one doesn't (namely the existing conflict between use as composition and use as module and now record qualifier). So, the Unicode one requires support but avoids weird parse issues.

OK. To me, the first hand is all you need - if there should be a plain-ASCII version of any Unicode symbol anyway, then you can avoid some trouble by just recognizing that you don't need Unicode symbols (let alone with different parsing rules.)

Donn

_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users