What would be the typing rules for this? What would be the types of
e.g. pointfree written function definitions (`f` in `let f = infix + 5
in f 2 + f 2 3 4`)? Haskell does support variable umber of argument
functions like for instance the `printf` by using type class instances
for arguments, but I don't think that approach would be flexible
enough to ensure type safety in all cases?
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Christopher Done
Ahoy,
The idiom discussion brought back to mind a general problem (well, for me) in Haskell syntax which is there is no syntactic sugar for interspersing operators to many arguments.
Regarding a solution for this, I wrote up a wee proposal here: https://gist.github.com/chrisdone/d9d33e4770a2fef19ad1
If I go ahead and implement this in GHC as -XInfixExpressions or something (better names welcome), would it be likely to be accepted? I could first do an implementation in haskell-src-exts to demonstrate the concept.
Ciao! _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe