while the report (and hugs) believe --+ 1 is a comment.
If a bystander is allowed to comment...
Actually, the newer versions of the report say you can use -- to begin a legal
lexeme (Sec. 2.3, p. 6).
GHC doesn't like this, either: it is hugs that is too permissive.
Regards,
-- Feliks
To be removed from this list simply reply with remove in the subject line.
Dear Webmaster,
Okay you have a great web site? Submitted to all of the search
engines? Even hired some college kid to promote you to all of the FFA
boards that nobody ever reads?
If so I guess that you monthly
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 09:50:18PM +0100, Feliks Kluzniak wrote:
while the report (and hugs) believe --+ 1 is a comment.
If a bystander is allowed to comment...
Actually, the newer versions of the report say you can use -- to begin a legal
lexeme (Sec. 2.3, p. 6).
Euch. Is --- the
Fri, 7 Dec 2001 11:38:14 -0800, Mark P Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
There's no solid technical reason for this, but Haskell doesn't allow
it at the moment because there isn't an easy way to name an instance
declaration.
There is another problem: even if we created a syntax to name them,
if
Fri, 7 Dec 2001 17:12:52 -0500 (EST), David Feuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
I'm wondering why Haskell doesn't support Scheme-like cond statements
or a pattern matching predicate.
I agree that both constructs make sense. The main objective is probably
that the syntax is already quite rich and
i got this from a tutor who thinks hes awesome and clever and thinks that i
wont be able to find the solutions to this! The question is whos clever
enuf out there to help me make my tutor look like a fool!
Please help, i will be in ur debt for a long time
Background
Rhode Jams make a
You're asking us to do your CS homework for you. Do it yourself - it's not hard if you
actually think about it. Look at the Shopping Receipt exercise in Simon Thompson's
HASKELL: THE CRAFT OF FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING if you need a template. If you get stuck,
ask specific technical questions -
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
There is another problem: even if we created a syntax to name them,
if they would not be exported by default then current programs would
have to be changed.
Well, the default could be to export, unless explicitly hidden. If it
_is_ exported, you could have
