Hi,
Brandon Allbery wrote:
[...] syntax extension [...]
I think someone's already working on this (SugarHaskell?).
Yes, we are working on it. See our paper [1] and Sebastian's talk [2] at
the Haskell Symposium. Our current prototype can be installed as an
Eclipse plugin [3] or as a
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Dan Burton danburton.em...@gmail.com
wrote:
[featureX] is usually too powerful, it surely would be abused
extensively, which would make developer's life a nightmare, unless there is
Hi,
I also support Jon's proposal for standalone of { ... }. Seems to me
clearer and more useful than the special \case construct.
I suppose 'of { ... }' could be generalized to multiple arguments, so that
of (Just x) (Just y) - x ++ y
would create an anonymous function of type 'Maybe String
Jon's suggestion sounds great.
The bike shed should be green.
That is all.
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Petr P petr@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I also support Jon's proposal for standalone of { ... }. Seems to me
clearer and more useful than the special \case construct.
I suppose 'of {
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:51 AM, David Thomas davidleotho...@gmail.comwrote:
Jon's suggestion sounds great.
The bike shed should be green.
There were plenty of proposals that would work fine. `case of` was great.
`\ of` was great. It's less obvious to me that stand-alone `of` is never
My 2 cents on the issue:
We should have a better forms of meta-programming to solve this sort of
issue generally. With the power of first-class functions and laziness, we
can get away with a lot of things without meta-programming, but case
expression syntax is not first class, so cannot benefit
Syntax extensibility is usually too powerful, it surely would be abused
extensively, which would make developer's life a nightmare, unless there is
only one developer and whole development takes no more than a couple of months.
On Dec 31, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Dan Burton danburton.em...@gmail.com
[featureX] is usually too powerful, it surely would be abused extensively,
which would make developer's life a nightmare, unless there is only one
developer and whole development takes no more than a couple of months.
This doesn't say much about *why* syntax extension is too powerful, nor
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Dan Burton danburton.em...@gmail.comwrote:
[featureX] is usually too powerful, it surely would be abused extensively,
which would make developer's life a nightmare, unless there is only one
developer and whole development takes no more than a couple of months.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 05:49:53PM +, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Ben Franksen ben.franksen at online.de writes:
just wanted to drop by to say how much I like the new lambda case
extension.
I use it all the time and I just *love* how it relieves me from conjuring
up
dummy variables,
Ben Franksen ben.frank...@online.de writes:
just wanted to drop by to say how much I like the new lambda case extension.
I use it all the time and I just *love* how it relieves me from conjuring up
dummy variables, which makes teh code not only esier to write but also to
read.
[…] should
I had been missing a pattern matching lambda in Haskell for a long time
(SML had fn since ages) and my typical use will be
monadic_expr = \case
branches
I think \case is not the worst choice, certainly better than of ...
Thanks to the GHC 7.6 developers!
Cheers,
Andreas
On 29.11.12
12 matches
Mail list logo
