kennheinrich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> I have a structure which defines a number of syntactic sugar
> functions, which are intended to be used as infix operators. As far
> as I can tell, the fixity of the names as declared inside the
> structure does not get ex****ted when I open it in some other struct.
> So everywhere I use the structure, I wind up following the "open" with
> a long series of infix statements. Is there a trick or recommended
> way of avoid all those redundant lines of infix declarations?
See the section “Infix vs. Modules” in “A Critique of Standard ML”
by
Andrew Appel. It says SML/NJ sup****ts infix spec in signatures, which
allows them to be obtained via “open”. (I've never tried using this.)
I don't think the official SML definition sup****ts this.
--
Joe
