Re: [pure-lang-users] Proposed syntax changes

[Jeremy V. <jvo...@gm...>]

Just my $0.02:

+1 to >>, for its consistency with Haskell (but I'm not suggesting
that Pure should be Haskell). To qualify my opinion, I think I am much
more likely to use a sequencing operator than I am to shift bits.

I wouldn't mind using $$.

-1 to -> since I am accustomed to seeing it in Haskell and ML type sigs.

Best,

Jeremy Voorhis

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:47 PM, John Cowan <co...@cc...> wrote:
> Albert Graef scripsit:
>
>> That sequencing operator should be easy to implement, but how should it
>> be named? We can't use Q's '||' because that's logical or in Pure, and
>> we can't use C's ',' because that's Pure's tupling operator. Another
>> obvious choice would be the Haskell'ish monadic sequencing operator '>>'
>> but that's currently used for bit shifts (maybe I could rename '<<'/'>>'
>> to shl/shr, though). Any other ideas?
>
> How about -> ?

I'm not too fond of