Hi - Consider the scenario when you want to find a function that returns the i'th element of an array but all you know is that there is a module called Data.Array.IArray that will probably have such a function in it. So you start typing in your program: let ith = Data.Array.IArray. at this point, you'd hope the editor you're using would somehow display a list of avaliable values exported from Data.Array.IArray including the indexing function, so you could select it, thus I would *like* to be able to use the syntax: let ith = Data.Array.IArray.(!) because it's not the user's fault that the person who wrote Data.Array.IArray decided to use a symbol instead of an identifier for this function - the user of Data.Array.IArray in this case just wants to see normal identifiers to use with prefix application so the use of (!) at this point effectively gets rid of the unwanted operatorness associated with the function. However the current syntax of Haskell would not allow this. Instead you have to write: let ith = (Data.Array.IArray.!) The problem is that the user of Data.Array.IArray has to know already in advance, before typing the 'D' of "Data", that the indexing function has been named with a symbol instead of an identifier, but this knowledge is only available later, when the user has typed the '.' after "IArray", so the current syntax would be frustrating for the user because the user then has to go all the way back and insert an opening paren before the 'D'. Also, consider the appearance of: let ith = (Data.Array.IArray.!) arr i b = Data.Array.IArray.bounds arr vs let ith = Data.Array.IArray.(!) arr i b = Data.Array.IArray.bounds arr I'm not sure if I've managed to explain this problem clearly enough, but my proposal is that we might consider changing the lexical syntax of Haskell as follows: varId ::= id varOp ::= symbol varIdOp ::= ` varId varOpId ::= ( varOp ) varOpIdOp ::= ` varOpId qvarId ::= {conId .}+ varId -- { }+ denotes 1 or more times qvarIdOp ::= ` qvarId qvarOp ::= {conId .}+ varOp qvarOpId ::= {conId .}+ varOpId qvarOpIdOp ::= `qvarOpId In other words, to turn an operator symbol into an id, the parentheses would be put immediately around the symbol (with no spaces since this is lexical syntax), and to turn an id into an operator the backquote is put in front of the entire (qualified) id. (Also the trailing backquote in the existing syntax is redundant) The above syntax would have 3 advantages: 1) It allows the client of a module to write code without having to worry if the author of the module used symbols or identifiers to name functions - everything exported from the module can be made to appear as if it was named by an identifier (ie OpId) 2) Moving the parentheses to the lexical syntax makes syntax highlighting easier (because there are no comments to worry about inside the OpId) and also makes parsing simpler because all the mess associated with Ops versus Ids is handled by the lexer 3) It allows an editor to make a distinction between (+) -- an operator turned into an identifier - varOpId ( + ) -- an expression with 2 gaps in it which should be marked as incomplete (+ ) -- a section with 1 gap Some examples of the proposed syntax are: let ith = Data.Array.IArray.(!) arr i foo = k `Math.(+) 6 -- default precendence bar = k Math.+ 6 -- using precedence of + in module Math When you try to write an editor for Haskell (or some subset of it), you quickly discover these areas of Haskell syntax like the above which need to be changed to get an optimum interactive editing experience. I think it *is* possible to adjust the Haskell grammar so that it is LL(1) and the only reason it is not already LL(1) seems to be that the grammar has been designed with compilers (which only need to deal with complete modules) in mind rather than programmers interactively editing in mind. (The other change needed for LL(1) is to give contexts a marker before they appear eg: foo :: {MonadIO m} a -> m a ) By LL(1) I'm really meaning that the grammar for interactive editing needs to be adjusted so that it is possible to maintain the invariant that as code is entered from left to right constructs and identifiers can be highlighted according to their grammatical role and highlighting (modulo incompleteness) must remain unchanged regardless of whatever is typed afterwards to the right otherwise it can become more of a liability than a help, hence my hope that some future revision of Haskell grammar might consider taking the above points into account. Regards, 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