Hacker News Reader

I don't think it makes sense to characterize Haskell as "big" on this basis, because 1) it is trivial to define an operator in Haskell, so there's bound to be a lot of them and 2) even the "standard" operators typically have a simple definition (e.g. https://www.stackage.org/haddock/lts-12.9/base-4.11.1.0/src/...).

View on HN

On the whole, I consider user-defined infix operators to be a huge mistake. While the few common ones are great, the ability for every single library creator to add their own infix operator turns into a mess in the long run.

They fine inside a limited domain-specific scope, just don't go importing operators from many libs willy-nilly.

It’s very hard to convince people to keep them in that limited scope.

Even if the operators themselves don't count as "part of the language", the complex precedence rules around them certainly should.

In what way? Those are defined as part of the operator. I usually parenthesize them anyway just like I would for an equation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com