Article didn’t explain the desire to change some common operators, tho it implied it would.

I’m uninterested in trying to graft an alternative front end on to GHC and I don’t think it would actually help the ecosystem much.

If we still had a language standard, I think a transpiler from a new front end to standard Haskell might be interesting. I don’t think the front end is that bad tho. Yes, records are troublesome and several languages have improved on them, but they aren’t often a real pain point for me until they interact with the type system, and a new front end is unlikely to fix that. (Extensible record types ala Purescript might?)

I think it is generally a good idea for an (infix) operator to have a equivalent (prefix) function, but I don’t think requiring at the language level buys you much. Good names is a cultural issue and doesn’t have a technological solution (as much as I want one). People that want to strongly encourage use of an operator will just pick a name that’s hard to type and pronounce and easynto confuse with other names.

I do wish we had mixfix operators ala Agda. I also think more precedence levels might help, tho I’ve always thought having the computer build/verify a transitive closure from pairwise ordering statements would be more flexible.

Anyway, I don’t think this is thought through enough, and I don’t think my thoughts here are complete enough either.