Neil Brown wrote:
Having skimmed the page, it seems like the re-use of "." is one of the major difficulties of the proposal. Would it be possible to use "->"? It has been used for accessing members in C and C++, so it is not too unusual a choice.
It's also the one that Perl went with.
It is already special in Haskell so it wouldn't break anyone's code -- but do its other uses (case statements and lambdas) mean that it would cause problems in the grammar if re-used for TDNR?
Given the other uses of -> in Haskell, I'm hesitant to suggest it either. I seem to recall # is the option used by OCaml and a few other functional-OO languages. So far as I know -XMagicHash is the only thing that would conflict with that name so it seems far less invasive than . or ->. Another option would be to use @ which is currently forbidden in expressions, though that might cause issues with System F/Core. -- Live well, ~wren