On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 07:41:42AM -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:

| Just to make sure I am interpreting the report correctly, is | ":" meant to be a valid qconop regardless of the | precedence-level and associativity of the qconop?

I don't really understand the "regardless of.." part. But, yes, ":" is a qconop, with precedence and associativity infixr 5.

Ah, I was reading it wrongly then. Can I suggest it (the abstract syntax) is rewritten in the revised report along a similar line to how - is handled in expressions? In fact, I think making explicit all the things which can take a precedence or associativity would be useful. Thanks Ian