> Which extensions are you using that are not Haskell 98? I would be very > interested to know what users would generally require from a refactorer.
I don't see myself as typical Haskell user yet, I'm way to new to the language to consider myself a real "user". Currently, I'm trying to learn arrows and Yampa (mainly to see how well it compares to my own dataflow/reactive stuff that was written in C#, C++ and assembler) I also needed functional dependencies, and usually my code does not compile without -fglasgow-exts, and I really don't know why :) > I agree with Neil, AST editors are generally ugly and hard to use. There > is also the problem of laying out Haskell code. Everyone uses their own > layout style and pretty printing ASTs is generally a bad thing to do in > this context. First of all, let's see if I get the concept of a "syntax directed editor" right. The idea is, that I (or my company), has a specific indentation rule, naming convention rule, etc... When I get code from someone else (in a syntax tree form ala XML), it will immediately show the text using my conventions. Furthermore, when I need to perform refactoring, a rename is just *one* change to the entire system, no matter how many other files use the name; no more merging for stupid renames. When diffing, whitespace, indentation, etc does not matter; the structure of the files is compared instead. A lot of metadata (for different views) can be attached to the syntax tree without cluttering my text files (like e.g. most version control systems do). I could go on like that, but the intentional programming website explains most of it. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
