SYNTAX ONLY

[Paul Hudak <hudak-paul@edu.yale.cs>]

Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Wed, 13 Mar 91 16:34:31 GMT
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 10:40:23 EST
From: Paul Hudak <hudak-paul@edu.yale.cs>
To: haskell@edu.yale.cs
Cc: guzman-maria@edu.yale.cs
Subject: SYNTAX ONLY
Original-Sender: hudak-paul@cs.yale.edu
Sender: haskell-request@cs.glasgow.ac.uk

SYNTAX ONLY

As "Moderator of Syntax Debates" (they used to call me "Syntax Czar"
on the Haskell committee, but I'm really too much of a wimp to deserve
that title :-), I'd like to try to close the two major syntax debates
that have been raging lately:


Regarding precedence of lambda, etc.:
-------------------------------------
After a careful reading of the report, I think that Brian is right
that the precedence is properly, if not formally, stated.  I also side
with his opinion (shared, I believe, by most members of the committee)
that an abstract syntax is most proper for the body of the Report.  

On the other hand, I agree with Kent that formally spelling out all
this is a Good Thing, and thus suggest that we include in the Appendix
a full concrete syntax of the language.  I don't care much what form
this in -- BNF, YACC, etc. -- but we should do it.


Regarding precedence of prefix minus:
-------------------------------------
Yikes -- so many contradictory opinions!!  After Brian's message I am
beginning to believe that there really is no firm consensus on this
issue; on the other hand Phil's message reminded me that the
precedence of +, -, etc., being in PreludeCore, can't be redefined.

"OK, Maria, let's flip a coin; heads things remain as they are, tails
 we change the precedence to that of infix minus.  Ready?  Up she
 goes....  HEADS IT IS!!"

Believe it or not, the above scene really happened.  But, shall we
make it two out of three??  (:-)


  -Paul