Re: Standard Haskell: More lexical/syntactic issues (from Alastair Reid)

1998-06-24 Thread Fergus Henderson
On the Standard Haskell site, Alastair Reid wrote: One of the goals of Standard Haskell was to simplify the language - removing traps and making it easier to teach/learn. We've seen very little work on this, so I'd like to make the following proposal: Let's remove all the little

Re: Standard Haskell: More lexical/syntactic issues (from Alastair Reid)

1998-06-24 Thread Erik Meijer
If you want a functional scripting language with H-M type inference and type classes and monads, that's great, but maybe it should be something separate from Haskell. I have been promoting Haskell exactly for this purpose for some time now, and I don't buy your points, e.g that in a scripting

Re: Standard Haskell: More lexical/syntactic issues (from Alastair Reid)

1998-06-24 Thread Fergus Henderson
On 24-Jun-1998, Frank A. Christoph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4) Module headers can be omitted. If the module leaves out the module header, the header module Main(main) where is assumed. [and that's a mistake] Fix the compilers. If there's no module header, the

RE: Standard Haskell: More lexical/syntactic issues (from Alastair Reid)

1998-06-24 Thread Frank A. Christoph
[I'm replying to both Fergus and Alastair in this message.] This is a reply to Fergus Henderson's comments on my proposal. My answer to all his comments is that consistent languages are easier to learn than languages littered with exceptions, special cases and random default behaviour. On the

Re: Standard Haskell: More lexical/syntactic issues (from Alastair Reid)

1998-06-24 Thread Simon Marlow
Fergus Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On the Standard Haskell site, Alastair Reid wrote: 1) Fixity declarations usually look like this: infixl 6 +, - but you can omit the precedence digit and write this instead: infixl +, - The programmer who

Re: Standard Haskell: More lexical/syntactic issues (from Alastair Reid)

1998-06-24 Thread Alastair Reid
I think you're missing the point. Omitting the precedence digit is important because it allows the programmer to avoid making a decision about something he doesn't really care about. Most of the time, you're not interested in the relative precedence of `thenP` vs. (+), since it doesn't

Re: Standard Haskell: More lexical/syntactic issues (from Alastair Reid)

1998-06-24 Thread Einar Wolfgang Karlsen
Frank A. Christoph wrote: If you want a functional scripting language with H-M type inference and type classes and monads, that's great, but maybe it should be something separate from Haskell. Haskell is, according to my experiences with tool integration, the ultimate scripting language

Re: Standard Haskell: More lexical/syntactic issues (from Alastair Reid)

1998-06-23 Thread Alastair Reid
This is a reply to Fergus Henderson's comments on my proposal. My answer to all his comments is that consistent languages are easier to learn than languages littered with exceptions, special cases and random default behaviour. 1) Fixity declarations usually look like this: infixl 6