6 Feb
2006
6 Feb
'06
10:52 a.m.
John Peterson wrote:
I think the point was that all syntax (like list comprehensions or pattern matching) in Haskell is tied directly to the Prelude. So [ f x ...] is ALWAYS using the Prelude definitions of things while "map" could be hidden and redefined.
Yes, of course. I was implicitly assuming that we were talking about Prelude's map.
The inability to change the meaning of constructs expanded from syntax as considered a bug by some, a feature by others. And I don't rember where Paul stood on this ...
It has always seemed to me that there should be a way to define something as syntactic expansion into things that cannot be redefined, otherwise the language definition becomes vague. -Paul