Mathew Mills wrote:
With Haskell's lovely strong static typing, it is a crying shame we don't have an editor with immediate feedback, ala Eclipse.
I've started writing an editor for Haskell. (It will be a commercial product) The first prototype was in C - now I'm re-writing from scratch in Haskell. It is quite a tall order to provide immediate typed feedback of an edit buffer that will in general be syntactically incomplete but this is my eventual aim. One issue in the area of immediate feedback is that Haskell's syntax is troublesome in a few areas. Consider: foo :: SomeClass a => a -> a when the user has just typed: foo :: SomeClass a should the editor assume SomeClass is a Tycon or a class name? One idea I had to solve this problem was to change the syntax of Haskell slightly so that constraints would be enclosed in {} instead of preceeding => ie: foo :: {SomeClass a} a->a so that in foo :: {SomeClass it is already determined that SomeClass must be a class name. Another thing which causes difficulty is the use of qualified operators, and the fact that the qualification syntax is in the context free grammar instead of being kept in the lexical syntax (where I think it belongs). For example, afaiu according to H98 (but not GHCi) it is permissible to write: a Prelude . + b -- qvarsym -> [ modid . ] varsym whereas in my prototype I put all this into a level immediately above the lexer but below the CFG so that no spaces are allowed thus: a Prelude.+ b -- no spaces in the qvarsym a `Prelude.(+)` b -- a little generalization a `Prelude.(+) b -- no need for closing ` (The generalization above is intended for when you don't know whether or not the function you're qualifying has been declared as an operator but you want to use it as an operator eg if a pop-up list would appear after you typed `Prelude. with entries such as (+) plus add etc) With the above changes, it is possible to parse Haskell (or at least as much as I got round to implementing in my C++ prototype) using a simple deterministic recursive descent parser with only 1 token of lookahead. (There is possibly some confusion in the H98 report about exactly how ambiguous expressions involving typed case alternatives might be parsed eg x :: a->b -> if x 4 then ... but I'm hoping it will be ok to just fix the syntax here by requiring extra brackets) Anyway I suppose the point of this post is to see whether or not people feel that such changes are acceptable in an editor, or whether an editor must adhere exactly to the standard (or whether the standard can be changed to enable the determinism and ease of parsing necessary for interactive editing with immediate feedback)? 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