On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:47:40AM +0200, silvio wrote:
Firstly, a notation where you put the first argument before the function/method?
[1,2,3] . length -> 3
Secondly, mimic the multilayered namespaces that is commonly found in mainstream imperative OO languages?
[1,2,3] . length -> 3::Int aPieceOfString . length -> 120.0::Double
Just trying to understand what problem you are actually trying to solve. I've *never* thought of (.) being powerful in OO languages, mostly because I don't really think the dot is what makes an OO language.
That's essentially it. I see that people on this thread where thinking more along the lines of inheritance. So let me add that it shouldn't be difficult to add the instances you want for your child object and then make a default instance which reverts to the parent object. It's a bit of a problem for updating stuff in a functional way since you can never be sure if a method is ment to return an object or if this is supposed to be an update. But for things in IO/STM/... it should be fine.
Excellent, then at least understand what you are after. I was confused by the ensuing discussion, because it so quickly moved away from what I thought you were really proposing. To be honest I've more often missed Haskell's (.) when programming in C/C++/C# than the other way around ;) /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@therning.org jabber: magnus@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind. -- Alan Kay