If this was used, you could probably also extend it to patterns where the function is a data constructor. Might be handy for vectors too, where OverloadedLists doesn't work. I could see myself using this to make arrow-y types easier to work with; being able to treat sums and products like lists would be much nicer than the type operator route, though that would require (,) not to be handled specially. Christopher Done-2 wrote
On 19 February 2015 at 18:53, Nils Schweinsberg <
mail@
> wrote:
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`)?
Purely syntactical, the translation I gave was literal: let f = infix + 5 is the same as let f = (5 +). But to avoid confusion it's also possible to disallow unary arguments and mandate at least two arguments. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Proposal-Infix-expression-keyword-XInfi... Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.