Re: [q-lang-users] New stuff in cvs: multichar ops, views

[John C. <co...@cc...>]

Albert Graef scripsit:

> Considering the precedence of '+:' a.k.a. ':+', I can see that it would
> be convenient to have a higher priority for some uses, but wouldn't that
> confuse Haskell programmers where ':+' has the same precedence as '+'?
> After all the current representation was meant to be more or less
> compatible with Haskell.

I have mixed feelings about it.  Scheme of course does not have infix
operator priorities, but does allow complex constants of the form 3+4i,
which is equivalent to (make-rectangular 3 4).  So tight binding feels
right to me.  OTOH, Haskell compatibility is a strong argument; on the
gripping hand, Haskell may simply have gotten this wrong, as C did with &&
and ||.

-- 
Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so,         John Cowan
is a tax on income.  --Lord Macnaghten (1901)           co...@cc...