[Ur] Functional infix operators ?

[Adam Chlipala]

OK, I see.  By "functional," you meant "related to function application, 
composition, etc.", not a general mechanism for introducing new infix 
operators.

If you (or anyone else) want to experiment with tweaking src/urweb.grm 
to add some new operators, I'll be happy to accept a patch embodying 
tasteful choices. :)  (May also require adding to lib/ur/top.ur[s] new 
definitions of conventionally named functions, to which the new 
operators desugar.)

On 02/11/2015 11:41 AM, Gabriel Riba wrote:
> Adam Chlipala <adamc <at> csail.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> On 02/11/2015 11:04 AM, Gabriel Riba wrote:
>>> A functional language cannot lack functional infix operators :)
>>>
>>> They enhance code readability and save parenthesis.
>> Could you please clarify whether your message is meant to convey a
>> feature request and, if so, exactly what that request is?
>>
> It is a feature request and a discussion proposal, because the symbols have
> to be chosen if not yet done.
>
> The most graphical appeling are the ones used by FSharp because the offer
> symetry in respect to the application direction.
>
> But you may claim some ML tradition and pick the OCaml ones.
>
> I thought that to include this few operators in the grammar was feasible but
> I cannot foresee the error messaging implications.