Changes between Version 5 and Version 6 of TypeDirectedNameResolution


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Nov 17, 2009 12:16:02 PM (6 years ago)
Author:
simonpj@…
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • TypeDirectedNameResolution

    v5 v6  
     1[[PageOutline]]
     2
    13= Proposal: TypeDirectedNameResolution =
    24
     
    68
    79See email thread at [http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe/61723]
     10
     11Right at the end of the page is a straw poll about the proposal.
    812
    913== Exploiting the power of the dot ==
     
    191195where `f .(g x)` means `(g x f)`.  The oddness here is that the TDNR invocation can "look inside" the `.(..)` to see the function at the head.  (And it had better BE a function, too.)
    192196
    193 I think this is probably worth it, although it's a little odd.
     197I think this is probably worth it, although it's a little odd.  To me, the ability to "stack up" postfix operations is rather important, and the fact that it doesn't fit nicely is the biggest shortcoming of this whole proposal.  Can anyone improve it?
     198
    194199== Discussion ==
    195200
     
    288293rather complicated to typecheck.  I do not want to make it worse.
    289294
    290 == section-style selection ==
     295== Section-style selection ==
    291296
    292297We have the option to allow '(.x)' as a valid expression, with its meaning given by the translation
     
    305310
    306311What about `(.x.y)`?  Does that expand to `(\f -> f.x.y)`?
     312
     313= Straw poll =
     314
     315It's hard to gauge how much people like proposals like this, so let's try the experiment of collecting votes here:
     316
     317Names of people who would positively like to see TDNR happen (say briefly why)
     318 * Simon PJ (I wrote the proposal)
     319
     320Names of people who think that on balance it's a bad idea
     321 * fill in here
     322
     323== Other comments ==
     324
     325''Add your own comments here''