Package: hugs Version: 98.200503.08-1 While having fun exploring the language, I discovered something unexpected: Hugs interprets (*2+1) as as (*(2+1)), in contravention of http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/exps.html#sect3.5
# Syntactic precedence rules apply to sections as follows. (op e) is # legal if and only if (x op e) parses in the same way as (x op (e)); # and similarly for (e op). For example, (*a+b) is syntactically invalid, # but (+a*b) and (*(a+b)) are valid. Because (+) is left associative, # (a+b+) is syntactically correct, but (+a+b) is not; the latter may # legally be written as (+(a+b)). A couple of examples, including specifically the one that the Report says is syntactically invalid: __ __ __ __ ____ ___ _________________________________________ || || || || || || ||__ Hugs 98: Based on the Haskell 98 standard ||___|| ||__|| ||__|| __|| Copyright (c) 1994-2005 ||---|| ___|| World Wide Web: http://haskell.org/hugs || || Report bugs to: hugs-bugs@haskell.org || || Version: 20050308 _________________________________________ Haskell 98 mode: Restart with command line option -98 to enable extensions Type :? for help Hugs.Base> (*2+1) 6 18 Hugs.Base> let a=2; b=3 in (*a+b) 5 25 If you're going to offer the extension, I think it needs to be justified why (*a+b) is not the same as (\x -> x*a+b) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
