[isabelle-dev] Some thoughts on mixfix syntax partially applied [was: NEWS]

Larry Paulson lp15 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Sep 22 16:51:22 CEST 2015

Is there a consensus that there is a problem with this notation? Having no special syntax might work, especially with jEdit, where one can click on an unexpected constant to see what it refers to.


> On 22 Sep 2015, at 15:21, Florian Haftmann <florian.haftmann at informatik.tu-muenchen.de> wrote:
> The »op •« is infamous. Whatever you wish instead (my personal favorite
> being no special syntax at all), problems include
> a) to detect unintended printing behaviour
> b) a suitable migration mechanisms
> Concerning b), one you could imagine things like
> a) alternative declarations (infix(l/r)_new beside infix(l/r),
> infix(l/r) beside infix(l/r)_old)
> b) a flag to control the semantics of infix(l/r)
> c) a flag combined with a data slot to modify existing mixfix
> declarations afterwards also
> Personally I would appreciate some move here, but this only makes sense
> if we agree what the goal is and whether it is worth the effort.
> Cheers,
> 	Florian
> -- 
> PGP available:
> http://home.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/haftmann/pgp/florian_haftmann_at_informatik_tu_muenchen_de
> _______________________________________________
> isabelle-dev mailing list
> isabelle-dev at in.tum.de
> https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev

More information about the isabelle-dev mailing list