Re: [Haskell-cafe] Custom unary operator extension?

Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>
> On Sep 9, 2007, at 9:09 , Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
>>> I think that the benefits of prefix or postfix symbolic operators 
>>> were not worth dispensing with the comfortable section syntax.
>> Well, that's personal I guess, but I would prefer the syntax (? / 
>> 100) and (100 / ?), which is just a single extra character to type, 
>> and hence allow unary operators, but hey, that's just me, the newbie ;-)
>
> I think I'd prefer _ instead of ? there, because it already has the 
> meaning of "placeholder".
>
Indeed, much better!

Peter