On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Will Ness
This syntax already exists. The '`' symbol is non-collating already, so using it for symbol chars doesn't change anything (it's not that it can be a part of some name, right?). To turn an infix op into an infix op is an id operation, made illegal artificially at the scan phase after a successful lex (or whatever).
If I've accidentally applied syntax meant for a prefix operator to an infix operator, *I want the compiler to tell me*, and not to silently accept my mistake.
Not a hack, a solution. A consistent one. Look:
(`foldl` 0) (`-` 2)
Don't they look exactly the same?
No, because the latter is applying prefix-to-infix syntax to an infix operator. It's understood that non-alphanumerics are infix by default, and I want the compiler to scream at me if I try to use one where it expected a prefix op.
Why wouldn't it be made legal? Show me one inconsistency it introduces.
You've said that you want to be able to do this for the sole case of the - (minus-sign) operator:
Operators are great because they make our intent visible, immediately apparent. Long words' meaning, like subtract's, is not immediately apparent, and they break consistency. Not everyone's first language in life was English, you see.
I don't buy this rationale. Haskell has plenty of English words as function names all over the place; if you can't handle "subtract", how are you handling Haskell at all? Sure, the minus-sign issue is a wart, but it's less awkward than the solution you propose for a problem I doubt you really have. :-)