Michael Hanus wrote:
> Exactly, and since there is this asymmetry even with the
> upper/lowercase requirement of Haskell, I am not in favor
> to restrict names to this requirement but require to write
> spaces before the dot if there is an identifier in front.
> Thus, the new proposal is to interpret a name (module identifier)
> directly followed by a dot and a name (or operator) always as
> a qualified identifier (as in the current syntax definition).
> Thus, the arithmetic sequence example must be written as
>
> f i = [i ..]
>
> and one can still qualify the operator "." as "prelude..".
>
> Ok?
Yes.
Regards
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________
curry mailing list
curry_at_lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/curry
Received on Di Sep 02 2003 - 17:30:07 CEST