Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Brian Hulley wrote:
ith = Data.Array.IArray.(!)
This cool editor is able to show a list of functions with the given qualification but is not able to enclose the qualified identifier in parentheses?
I hadn't thought of that...
I don't think that it is a good idea to move the qualification away from the qualified identifier. The parentheses around the infix operator are a special case of sections. With the proposed syntactic change, we would have two meanings of parentheses: Section and making an infix operator prefix. One can also mix up Data.Array.IArray.(!) more easily with function composition Data.Array.IArray . (!) if Data.Array.IArray is also a constructor.
Yes this problem was at the back of my mind. I think I'm coming round to the view that the original syntax is actually better after all. It also turns out that it's rather difficult to deal with Data.Array.IArray.(+) at the lexical level because there are 3 different ways in which this can be incomplete eg: Data.IArray.Array. Data.IArray.Array.( Data.IArray.Array.(+ leading either to too many different tokens to represent the above variations or else a very heavyweight token with many fields. I had originally thought it would be easier to have (+) and `div` as lexemes so that it would be easier to parse expressions involving operators in the CFG, but as long as http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/FixityResolution is accepted, this reason will disappear. Thanks for the good justification of the existing syntax, Brian. -- Logic empowers us and Love gives us purpose. Yet still phantoms restless for eras long past, congealed in the present in unthought forms, strive mightily unseen to destroy us. http://www.metamilk.com