On 06/02/06, John Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cale Gibbard wrote:
That said, I'd *really* like to see monad comprehensions come back,
since they align better with the view that monads are container types,
dual to the view that monads are computations, which is supported by
the do-syntax.
Hello John,
Monday, February 06, 2006, 10:39:59 AM, you wrote:
That said, I'd *really* like to see monad comprehensions come back,
JH We did consider more aggressive defaulting to address the ambiguity
JH problems with monad comprehensions--defaulting Monad to lists, for
JH example, or
On 2/6/06, John Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The trouble with monad comprehensions was that it became far too easy to
write ambiguous programs, even when you thought you were just working
with lists.
Would the Haskell98-style solution be to add defaulting for Monads?
--
Taral [EMAIL
Quoting Paul Hudak [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually, one of the main reasons that we chose (:) is that that's what
Miranda used. So, at the time at least, it was not entirely clear what
the de facto universal inter-language standard was.
Phil Wadler argued for the ML convention at the time,
John Hughes wrote:
Quoting Paul Hudak [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually, one of the main reasons that we chose (:) is that that's what
Miranda used. So, at the time at least, it was not entirely clear what
the de facto universal inter-language standard was.
Phil Wadler argued for the ML
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I now think :: for type signatures was a bad mistake.
I don't use lists very much. They are not the right data structure
for many things. So : is not as common as :: in my code.
I checked a small sample of code, about 2 lines of Haskell.
It has about 1000
John Hughes wrote:
What, no list comprehensions??
No. I think the do notation is good enough.
I'd disagree--sequencing is special, and lists represent it directly.
Don't forget, also, that lists are also much more prevalent in beginners'
code--and nice notation for beginners helps get
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 10:45:50AM -0500, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I don't really see what's so much better about writing
[x1,x2,x3,x4,x5] than x1:x2:x3:x4:x5:[].
When I've explained lists to beginners I've just found it
annoying and hard to explain why there are two ways of
writing lists.
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
LA In my opinion all the special syntactic sugar for lists should go
LA away. I don't think lists are special enough to motivate it.
i have proposal (not for Haskell', of course) of using : and []
syntax for general notion of traversable collections:
Minor point,
On 05/02/06, Lennart Augustsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Hughes wrote:
What, no list comprehensions??
No. I think the do notation is good enough.
I'd disagree--sequencing is special, and lists represent it directly.
Don't forget, also, that lists are also much more prevalent in
Cale Gibbard wrote:
That said, I'd *really* like to see monad comprehensions come back,
since they align better with the view that monads are container types,
dual to the view that monads are computations, which is supported by
the do-syntax. This view is actually much easier to teach (in my
11 matches
Mail list logo
