Re: Qualified identifiers opinion
Isaac Dupree <isaacdupree <at> charter.net>
2007-08-17 20:48:18 GMT
Christian Maeder wrote:
> Hi Isaac,
> just to give you a reply at all, see below. I reply
> glasgow-haskell-users <at> haskell.org since I'm not subscribed to
> haskell-prime. And I don't want to subscribe, because I'm more
> interested that Haskell becomes more stable (and standard).
Then maybe you can join haskell-prime and provide the energy that rounds
up all the little fixes and tries to actually produce the thing!
Drastic changes are not intended to go in. Haskell' should bring more
stability and standardness (as long as it doesn't diverge too much from
Haskell98, which would decrease stability and standardness)
> So here is
> my opinion:
> 1. The lexer should recognize keywords.
> 2. I would not mind if Haskel98 rejected all keywords that are also
> rejected by extensions, so that the lexer is extension independent.
> (Starting with Haskell98, removing conflicting identifiers as soon as I
> switch on valuable extensions does not make sense.)
Trouble is, extensions are just that: extensions, and more with their
own keywords may be added in the future! unless we want an
internet-standard-like "x-keywordname" - but that doesn't solve this
problem: standardized new keyword names clogging up the general
namespace, as long as they don't have a symbol (like Objective-C has
<at> class, <at> whatever...).