wren ng thornton
Will Ness wrote:
(`foldl`2) works.
(`-`2) should too.
The `` syntax is for converting lexical identifiers into infix operators. Symbolic identifiers are already infix, which is why ``
So it would be a no-op then. Why make it illegal? Just because it makes writing the scanner easier is no answer.
doesn't work for them. If we introduced this then those striving for consistency would be right in requesting that this pattern be allowed for all symbolic operators. I for one am opposed to introducing superfluous syntax for duplicating the current ability to write things in the same ways.
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). Finally enabling the missing functionality which is a common stumbling block for every beginner is hardly "duplicating".
Attack the underlying problem, don't introduce hacks to cover up broken hacks. This isn't C++.
The underlying problem is a broken scanner where it can't distinguish between a binary op and a number read syntax. Op names are collated symbol chars, and one of the symbols, -, is also a valid number prefix. So, allow for a clues from programmer to detach it from the number: backticks separate it from the following numeric chars, preventing it from "sticking" to them. And by itself, it forms an op, a binary one. Not a hack, a solution. A consistent one. Look: (`foldl` 0) (`-` 2) Don't they look exactly the same? Why wouldn't it be made legal? Show me one inconsistency it introduces.