Difference between revisions of "Relative infix operator precedences"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(point to an old discussion) |
(Fixity resolution) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* Dan Weston in Haskell Cafe on [http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2006-November/019293.html Fractional/negative fixity?], especially Jon Fairbairn's [http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2006-November/019389.html proposal] |
* Dan Weston in Haskell Cafe on [http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2006-November/019293.html Fractional/negative fixity?], especially Jon Fairbairn's [http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2006-November/019389.html proposal] |
||
* Brian Hullay in Haskell Cafe on [http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2006-October/018884.html Automatic fixity allocation for symbolic operators] |
* Brian Hullay in Haskell Cafe on [http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2006-October/018884.html Automatic fixity allocation for symbolic operators] |
||
| + | * For Haskell-Prime about [http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/FixityResolution Fixity resolution in Haskell 98] |
||
[[Category:Proposals]] |
[[Category:Proposals]] |
||
Latest revision as of 16:48, 9 April 2009
It was intensively discussed, whether Haskell should better have syntax for describing relations like "'times' binds more tightly than 'plus'" and "'plus' and 'minus' bind by the same strenght", instead of numeric precedence values like 6 and 7. The relative precedence declarations would also allow to let unrelated infix operators unrelated. This would force the use of parentheses in cases where the operator name designers did not anticipate a certain combination of infix operators.
See
- Dan Weston in Haskell Cafe on Fractional/negative fixity?, especially Jon Fairbairn's proposal
- Brian Hullay in Haskell Cafe on Automatic fixity allocation for symbolic operators
- For Haskell-Prime about Fixity resolution in Haskell 98