Issue with persistence of infixity status about smlfmt

[shwestrick]

I.e., I think SML/NJ is rejecting this program because it doesn't type check, not because it doesn't parse.

[brandonspark]

Oh - for some reason I thought that it was storing information about infixity to determine whether or not something like 2 << 3 should be parsed as "2 applied to <<, applied to 3" versus "<< applied to (2, 3)".

Nevermind, I think I confused myself - that makes sense. Sorry for the mix-up!

[shwestrick]

I actually think this is correct. Our parser isn't parsing << as an infixed operator, but as a normal identifier. I believe SML/NJ is failing early because it knows that the literal 2 does not have function type (which is what it means by "operator does not have function type")