Hello Lauri,
Thursday, March 2, 2006, 3:25:31 PM, you wrote:
LA> Now, I wonder whether we really really really need to track implicit
LA> parameters in the type system. After all, exceptions, too, introduce a
there is also another way - allow "partial function signatures"
--
Best regards,
Bul
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:53:42AM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
> something along these lines is likely to be quite straightforward to
> implement, won't require any changes to the type system, and gives you
> a useful form of implicit parameters without any of the drawbacks.
>
> The main difference
Ashley Yakeley wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
Simon & I have discussed doing some form of thread-local state, which
covers many uses of implicit parameters and is much preferable IMO.
Thread-local state doesn't change your types, and it doesn't require
passing any extra parameters at runtime. It
Simon Marlow wrote:
Simon & I have discussed doing some form of thread-local state, which
covers many uses of implicit parameters and is much preferable IMO.
Thread-local state doesn't change your types, and it doesn't require
passing any extra parameters at runtime. It works perfectly well fo
Hello Simon,
Tuesday, February 28, 2006, 5:40:35 PM, you wrote:
SM> Simon & I have discussed doing some form of thread-local state, which
this means new RTS primitives, like that used in IORef implementation?
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ashley Yakeley wrote:
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
I'd advise against using implicit parameters, because (as you've seen)
it's hard to reason about when they'll get passed to functions.
And Johannes Waldmann wrote:
> Implicit parameters are *evil*. They seem to simplify programs
> but they make
| Sent: 19 January 2005 14:42
| Unbound implicit parameter (?global_counter::IORef a)
| arising from use of `get_unique' at Test.hs:17:13-22
|
| Is this a bug? Is there some reason why this is not possible? (and if
it
| is not possible
| shouldn't the documentation be changed to reflect th
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> Ben Rudiak-Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Another extension I proposed is that the "name" of an implicit return
> > value can include type parameters: thus %foo Int and %foo Char would be
> > treated as though they had different names.
>
> Th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ben Rudiak-Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another extension I proposed is that the "name" of an implicit return
> value can include type parameters: thus %foo Int and %foo Char would be
> treated as though they had different names.
This bit doesn't seem very p
