Jason Dagit
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Will Ness
wrote: 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?
Don't you mean 3 `(-)` 2? I'm pretty sure -, without the parens is infix and (-) is prefix. So it seems to me that you need the brackets for this to be consistent.Jason
You absolutely right, in current syntax that also would only be consistent, yet is illegal also. But I propose to augment the syntax by allowing symbolic ops in backticks to stand for themselves. When I see `op`, for me, it says: infix op. So `+` would also say, infix +. (`- ` 2) would finally become possible. It would read: treat - as infix binary and make a flip section out of it. Just as it does for an alphanumeric identifier in (`op` 2). Without backticks, symbolic ops are also treated as infix by default, but that's just convinience. Anyway I guess all the points in this discussion have been made, and it's just a matter of taste.