Parse error with unary (-) operator. about compiler HOT 5 CLOSED

Yep, currently unsupported. Mainly because (1) it is pretty easy to solve and (2) I am torn between using ~ like in ML or - like in Haskell. I really like the idea of resolving the ambiguity entirely.

from compiler.

I kind of liked the approach Ken Iverson used in APL and J, where there was
a special prefix for negative numbers, separate from the "minus" sign and
part of the token for number rather than a separate operator.

APL used an overscore character, but J switched to the plain ascii
underscore. So, _1 would be "negative one".

His view was that _1 is a number in its own right, and should be treated as
such in the notation.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Evan Czaplicki [email protected]:

Yep, currently unsupported. Mainly because (1) it is pretty easy to solve
and (2) I am torn between using ~ like in ML or - like in Haskell. I really
like the idea of resolving the ambiguity entirely.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/59#issuecomment-11113895.

from compiler.

I'd vote for just adopting the traditional unary minus.

Doing anything else will just be confusing to newcomers, and slow down adoption of Elm.

from compiler.

We discussed this feature on the list recently, and came to this conclusion.

I have since implemented it in the types branch (which is not ready for actual use at the moment), so this is likely to come in the next release.

from compiler.

Released in 0.9!

from compiler.