On 22-Sep-08 22:40, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
[snip]
>> I think that some functional and declarative languages can also be 
>> included in your list. If we put Haskell on that list, I think we 
>> safely conclude that we totally agree on everything in this thread.
> 
> No, because you can't change Haskell syntax, as far as I know. You can't 
> name an operator :: and you can't name a function "case". They're 
> reserved. As far as I know, you can't make up new syntax for the 
> language, and you can't change the syntax it has. I may be wrong about 
> that.

My point was always the other way around: does Haskell allow you to 
introduce concepts and control structures that from that point on will 
become conceptually 'part of the language' for you? To the extent that 
for you they behave like 'reserved words'. In the sense that overriding 
them will result in mayhem everywhere, not least within your own brain. 
I think it does.

[snip]

>>>>> Sure. And if you have an entity called "o" or "+" or "case" or 
>>>>> "start"?
>>>> yes?
>>>
>>> How do you distinguish that variable name from the syntactic form 
>>> that "case" currently introduces in Haskell?
>>>
>> you don't. you refrain from using 'case' as a variable by self censoring. 
> 
> OK, maybe I misphrased it. How does the compiler distinguish the 
> variable name from the syntactic form that "case" currently introduces 
> in Haskell?  If "you don't", then it means your compiler's behavior is 
> unspecified when you use the word "case" as a variable. People generally 
> don't like compiler behavior to be unspecified for valid programs.

Normal scoping rules may apply.

Post a reply to this message