Hello Henning, Monday, February 06, 2006, 4:12:44 PM, you wrote:
In my opinion all the special syntactic sugar for lists should go away. I don't think lists are special enough to motivate it.
HT> Fine, someone shares my attitude towards the list sugar. Nevertheless, do HT> you mean with 'no sugar for lists' also no infix operator for list HT> construction? I would still like an operator of low precedence for list HT> construction for writing e.g. (1,'a"):(2,'b'):[]. i prefer to have ":" and "[]" as general collection constructors: class Collection c a where [] :: c a -- creates empty collection (:) :: a -> c a -> c a -- adds value to the head of collection and having "default rules" that instatiates this collection type to list if there is no type signatures and other information what allows to find proper type of collection constructed this way - just like the "default Int" language construct defaults all untyped numeric constants to Int -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulatz@HotPOP.com