[bitc-dev] mixfix meets syntactic categories
Jonathan S. Shapiro
shap at eros-os.org
Tue Oct 19 09:34:25 PDT 2010
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Mark P. Jones <mpj at cs.pdx.edu> wrote:
> > In Haskell, the precedence of type annotation is very low. This has the
> consequence that type annotation lacks a certain symmetry:
> > a:int + b => (a:int) + b
> I think you've misunderstood the Haskell grammar. The first of
> your examples, even after replacing : with ::, is a syntax error.
Mark is (as usual) correct. I had mis-read the grammar. In Haskell, that
annotation needs to be written as:
(a:int) + b
So I suppose the question now is: where should type annotation be in the
BitC precedence hierarchy? I prefer that it bind tightly, but this probably
just reflects the fact that I'm coming from C, and that is what is familiar.
Is there a strong or compelling reason to have it bind loosely (other than
the mixfix complications)?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitc-dev