Backslash escaping operator sections
sullyj3 opened this issue · comments
Would it be possible to allow something like:
>>> [1,2,3,4,5] \(+ 1) map
[2,3,4,5,6]
This seems much nicer than the current way to do it:
[1,2,3,4,5] {(+ 1)} map
As well as being more consistent.
Good idea. I think it’s safe to relax \ to work on any term, so \term should always be equivalent to { term }. A bit strangely, it would make \(foo bar baz) perfectly legal syntax for { foo bar baz }, but I think that’s acceptable, because people would prefer the latter anyway.
One minor problem with this IIRC is that Emacs treats \( as matching \), not ), because of some regexp dialects. So we’d have to account for that in kitten-mode. (Editor integrations need a lot of love anyway.)
Is the difference b/c it would otherwise have to be written, { 1 (+) }? Also, is \( + 2 + 1 ) valid?
Operator sections are sugar to avoid some stack operations:
(+ 1)→1 (+)(1 +)→1 swap (+)
This change would just make e.g. \(+ 1) valid and equivalent to { (+ 1) }, because \foo is already valid and equivalent to { foo }.
(+ 2 + 1) is currently valid, and equivalent to (+ (2 + 1)) or (+ 3), but that’s kind of a bug because it can lead to misleading precedence.
I've given it some thought, but I don't see the common pattern.
(+ 1) → 1 (+)(1 +) → 1 swap (+)
What's the rule of translation? How does the swap come into it?
Operator sections are just partially applied operators. For some operator @:
(a @ b)is fully applied, and desugared intoa b (@).(@ b)is desugared intob (@)because(@ b)=-> x; x @ b=-> x; x b (@)=b (@)(a @)is desugared intoa swap (@)because(a @)=-> x; a @ x=-> x; a x (@)=-> x; x a swap (@)=a swap (@)
So while (+ 1) is a function that adds 1 to its argument, { (+ 1) } (or, with this proposal, \(+ 1)) is a function that pushes that function to the stack.