RE: lexical description problem in language report?
17 Aug
2001
17 Aug
'01
5:32 p.m.
I agree with this proposal, and I will adopt it for H98. Any objections? Simon | Similarly, in 4 and 4.4.2, we have | | gendecl -> fixity [digit] ops | | but digit isn't in the list of lexemes in 2.2 and B.2, nor is | it reasonable for it to be there. I suggest | | gendecl -> fixity [integer] ops | | with the value of the integer constrained to be between 0 and | 9 inclusive. Incidentally, this is what GHC, Hugs and NHC do, | in that they accept | | infix 0x0003 !$% | | as equivalent to | | infix 3 !$% | | presumably because doing what the Report says would be rather awkward.
9142
Age (days ago)
9142
Last active (days ago)
0 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Simon Peyton-Jones