[clean-list] Wish list, part 3

[Matt Lye]

----- Original Message -----
From: <F.S.A.Zuurbier@inter.nl.net>
To: <clean-list@cs.kun.nl>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 5:58 AM
Subject: Re: [clean-list] Wish list, part 3


> > > c) I would very much like to markup my symbols like >add<,  >sub< for
> > > dyadic operators, or symbol+, symbol*, symbol? for parsing functions,
> > > or @node for labels, or <elem> and </elem> for constructors.
> > I understand and I agree.
> > I have to think what we can do about it.
> ...
> 1). What you need for this kind of flexibility is a non-deterministic
parser that interacts with the type-checker.
> I don't know whether the advantages would be worth the trouble.

Would it be more feasible if the infix operator syntax was  FunnyChar
[AnyChar] FunnyChar?

This would allow expressions such as +symbol+, *symbol*, ?symbol?, @node>,
<elem>, without creating confusion such as in the n+1 instance.