Tom Tobin <korpios <at> korpios.com> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Will Ness <will_n48 <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This syntax already exists. The '`' symbol is non-collating already, so
> > using it for symbol chars doesn't change anything (it's not that it
> > can be a part of some name, right?). To turn an infix op into an infix op
> > is an id operation, made illegal artificially at the scan phase after a
> > successful lex (or whatever).
>
> If I've accidentally applied syntax meant for a prefix operator to an
> infix operator, *I want the compiler to tell me*, and not to silently
> accept my mistake.

You don't apply sytax, you write it.

You think of functions, where domain matters (for purists?). In syntax only the
result matter, does it read? Does it have an intended meaning?

How is it a mistake if it expresses what I intended?

Both 3 `-` 2 and curry fst `foldl` 0 are exactly the same - expressions with
infix operator, read in the same way, interpreted in the same way. In the first
case the backticks are made superfluous by Haskell reader for our convinience;
but they shouldn't be made illegal. Why should they be? I truly don't
understand the resistance to this idea. :)