Hans Aberg, you wrote:
I would rather think that the reason that functional languages are not
used is the lack of an ISO/ANSI standard, plus the lack of standard ways of
making cooperation with other, imperative languages.
Of these two reasons, I don't think the first has much weight at
David Barton wrote:
Hans Aberg writes:
I do not think that the Pascal standardizing model is being used
anymore; instead one schedules a new revision, say every five years
(this is used for C++). There is already an application put in for
ISO/ANSI standardizing of Java, and I
Christian,
In Haskell you can use exitWith :: ExitCode - IO a from the System library,
so you don't need the program to "return" a "Int" (this is not a
esthetically pleasing in C!). The IO a allows the operation to be used
in any IO monad context, not just IO ().
Regards,
Kevin
At 6:40 pm
Christian Sievers wrote:
Hello, I just wondered if it was ever considered to let the main function
have the type IO Int, in order to let the haskell programm be able to
return an exit code to the calling environment, as C's int main(...)
does. I think real programms sometimes want to
Christian Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes (I format the text)
The report says explicit that instance declarations like
instance C (a,a) where ...,
or for (Int,a) or for [[a]]
are not allowed. I tried to understand this by thinking these
types are too complex,
The report says explicit that instance declarations like
instance C (a,a) where ..., or for (Int,a) or for [[a]] are not
I now only would like to know why this design decission was made,
are there any problems with the instance declarations I have in mind?
You might find "Type classes -
Quite a lot of discussion has concerned standardization in the sense of
standards bodies --- in fact I'm a little sorry we used the word `Standard'!
Perhaps we should have called the fixed design `Haskell Omega' instead! What
we're proposing is simple to make one more revision --- call it
Isn't this a Unix-specific convention, to treat the value returned by
main()
as the exit value of the process?
Yes, and it only works in some flavours of Unix. The proper
way to exit a C program is to call exit(). The proper way to
exit a Haskell program is to call exitWith.
--
I *strongly* agree with John.
Let's not even *talk* about "official" standardization until we get
Haskell 1.5 (nominally, "Standard" Haskell) done.
Then, and only then, will the question of "official" standardization
become (perhaps!) relevant.
Dave
Nothing to do with the content of the language (Standard) Haskell per
se, but if the next revision is going to be the final product of the
Haskell Committee, I'd like to encourage its members to at some stage
write something up about the decade-long design process.
A design rationale would be
At 07:10 97/08/22, David Barton wrote:
Let's not even *talk* about "official" standardization until we get
Haskell 1.5 (nominally, "Standard" Haskell) done.
I believe we should keep the First Amendment. :-)
Hans Aberg
* AMS member: Listing http://www.ams.org/cml/
John said:
The point has also been made that Haskell 1.4 lacks some features that are
already quite well understood and will be sorely missed for serious
applications --- multi-parameter classes, state threads, existential and
universal types. If this is the last revision then the most
Hans Aberg writes:
At 07:10 97/08/22, David Barton wrote:
Let's not even *talk* about "official" standardization until we get
Haskell 1.5 (nominally, "Standard" Haskell) done.
I believe we should keep the First Amendment. :-)
First Amendment? Heck, if you even *think* about it,
Sigbjorn Finne wrote: [in connection with the Standard Haskell discussion]
If nothing else, it could force people to think twice about designing
a new language :-)
Yeah, we don't need anything new. In fact, I've been thinking of an
alternate way of standardizing Haskell. It is described
Zooko Journeyman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
...
Honestly, would you use a language which does not allow to
program a depth-first graph traversal in O(n).
Ah. I didn't realize it was that bad.
...
But I've yet to implement a graph structure of any sort (as far
as I can remember) and then
Sergey Mechveliani wrote:
: As to `instance D a',
: it is not a loss. Because `instance D a' is the same as
: `class D a' - supplied with the default definition. For example,
: the illegal declaration pair
:
:classC a = D a where d :: a - a
:
:
16 matches
Mail list logo
