Re: [pure-lang-users] bug in def

[Jiri S. <jir...@bl...>]

Eddie Rucker napsal(a):
> Jiri, can you show me how you defined the => operator?
> 
> I had something like
>  infix 2 => ;
> 
> I never gave it a real definition except inside of a zipwith like
> zipwith (\(x=>y) z -> ...) ...
> 
> I had to give at least a precedence of 2 because it is the only way I could get it *not* to give a syntax error on something like
>  [1=>"a",2=>"b"]
> 
Originally I defined it according to Albert's suggestion as infix 0. 
After reading this discussion I changed it to infix 2.

Since I used 'zipwith (=>) ...' to test my stuff I didn't notice the 
problems with writing the lists manually.

However, isn't there something wrong with displaying the data:

   > infix 0 => ;
   > zipwith (=>) (1..3) (1.0..3.0);
   [1=>1.0,2=>2.0,3=>3.0]
   >

I would expect '[(1=>1.0),(2=>2.0),(3=>3.0)]' in such a case.

Jiri