On 27/02/15 09:58, Oliver Charles wrote:

So you would argue that these should desugar to the same thing?

I guess I'm talking more generally here. On the one hand, I find this practical and convenient. On the other hand, it (almost by design) breaks our usual intuition of how the space works. E.g. in most other cases id x is the same as x, but inside idiom brackets they mean x and pure x, respectively. I don't have a specific suggestion, just a concern.

I'm on the fence - on the one hand its nice to be able to leave a few 'pure's out, but on the other those parenthesis have no syntactic meaning before, so it's questionable why they suddenly do inside idiom brackets.

I can live with needing a few more 'pure's though.

- Ollie

On 26 Feb 2015 23:28, "Roman Cheplyaka" mailto:roma@ro-che.info> wrote:

I'm starting to like this. Except the weird difference between spaces on different levels that you point out, i.e.

[| const True False |]

vs

[| (const True) False |]

On 26/02/15 23:04, Oliver Charles wrote: > Hi all, > > A few days ago I made a post here to gauge interest in adding idiom > brackets to GHC. Response was a bit more mixed than I was hoping, but no > one seemed to drastically against the idea, so I've moved forward with a > more detailed proposal. > > You can find the full proposal here: > > https://ocharles.org.uk/IdiomBrackets.html > > A particular difference in my proposal from existing solutions comes > from my desire to lift almost *all* expressions - with the original > syntax - into idiom brackets. This means normal function application and > tuples, but also case expressions, let bindings, record construction, > record update, infix notation, and so on. > > At first I was skeptical about this, but I am finding uses for this more > and more. I really like how it lets me use the interesting data (that > is, whatever is "under" the applicative functor) where it's most > relevant - rather than having to build a function and thread that value > back through. Examples of this can be seen in my proposal. > > To prove its use, I've been working with this Template Haskell > expression: > > https://ocharles.org.uk/IdiomExp.hs > > It *almost* does exactly what I want, the only problem is I can't get > Template Haskell to give me a difference between > > $(i [| const True False |]) > > and > > $(i [| (const True) False |]) > > which I was planning to be significant. > > The proposal has mostly grown into my own personal notebook, so I'm > happy to clarify anything that is vague/contradictory/confusing. > > Look forward to hearing your thoughts! > > -- Ollie > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >