... | @@ -151,10 +151,6 @@ would just mean |
... | @@ -151,10 +151,6 @@ would just mean |
|
Possible modifications to the proposal include:
|
|
Possible modifications to the proposal include:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Only allow `do` in argument positions, but no other constructs. This has an advantage of making a minimal change to the grammar, while addressing the most common case.
|
|
- Only allow `do` in argument positions, but no other constructs. This has an advantage of making a minimal change to the grammar, while addressing the most common case.
|
|
- Only allow **group A** constructs in argument positions. This has an advantage of not making the grammar more complex.
|
|
|
|
- Add `{-# SCC #-}` and `{-# CORE #-}` constructs to **group B**. This is arguably a more uniform treatment, but it has a problem that an insertion of a pragma can change the parse tree. For example, `f a {-# SCC "foo" #-} b c` would parse as `f a ({-# SCC "foo #-} (b c))`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This proposal has been extensively discussed on [ haskell-cafe](https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2015-September/121217.html) and on [ reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/447bnw/does_argument_do_have_a_future/).
|
|
This proposal has been extensively discussed on [ haskell-cafe](https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2015-September/121217.html) and on [ reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/447bnw/does_argument_do_have_a_future/).
|
... | | ... | |