I think left-biased (= singly linked) lists
are much overrated in Haskell coding (and teaching).
The language (syntax and Prelude) makes it just too easy to use them,
and old habits (from LISP) die hard.
Sure, lists serve a purpose:
* they model (infinite, lazy) streams, used
in the
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
We have overloaded numerical literals (Num.fromInteger)
and we can overload string literals (IsString.fromString),
so how about using list syntax ( [], : )
for anything list-like (e.g., Data.Sequence)?
My favorite solution would be to throw away
On 06/09/10 11:23, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
We have overloaded numerical literals (Num.fromInteger)
and we can overload string literals (IsString.fromString),
so how about using list syntax ( [], : )
for anything list-like (e.g., Data.Sequence)?
I would have thought you have two obvious
Hello Johannes,
Monday, September 6, 2010, 2:23:35 PM, you wrote:
i had such idea several years ago and proposed to name class ListLike.
this class was finally implemented by John Goerzen and it does
everything we can w/o changing language
the main thing about literals is that they need to be
On Sep 6, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
We have overloaded numerical literals (Num.fromInteger)
and we can overload string literals (IsString.fromString),
so how about using list syntax ( [], : )
for anything list-like (e.g., Data.Sequence)?
As lists of some type A represent
Am Montag, den 06.09.2010, 11:47 +0100 schrieb Neil Brown:
I would have thought you have two obvious choices for the type-class
(things like folding are irrelevant to overloading list literals):
class IsList f where
fromList :: [a] - f a
or:
class IsList f where
cons :: a - f a
Wolfgang,
We should definitely get rid of these Is* class identifiers like
IsString and IsList. We also don’t have IsNum, IsMonad, etc.
I see your point. For strings, however, there was of course never the
possibility to dub the class String as that name is already taken by the type
synonym.
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Stefan Holdermans wrote:
Wolfgang,
We should definitely get rid of these Is* class identifiers like
IsString and IsList. We also don’t have IsNum, IsMonad, etc.
I see your point. For strings, however, there was of course never the
possibility to dub the class String as
On Sep 6, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Stefan Holdermans wrote:
In general, it is kind of unfortunate that type classes and type
constructors share a namespace, even though there is no way to ever
mix them up.
Class and type names mix in im- and export lists. IIRC, this is the
reason for putting
Hello Stefan,
Monday, September 6, 2010, 3:47:11 PM, you wrote:
In general, it is kind of unfortunate that type classes and type
constructors share a namespace, even though there is no way to ever mix them
up.
btw, i also had proposal to automatically convert typeclasses used in
type
Hello Johannes,
Monday, September 6, 2010, 2:23:35 PM, you wrote:
so how about using list syntax ( [], : )
for anything list-like (e.g., Data.Sequence)?
i'vwe found my own proposal of such type:
http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell-cafe@haskell.org/msg15656.html
--
Best regards,
Bulat
2010/9/6 Bulat Ziganshin bulat.zigans...@gmail.com:
Hello Johannes,
Monday, September 6, 2010, 2:23:35 PM, you wrote:
so how about using list syntax ( [], : )
for anything list-like (e.g., Data.Sequence)?
i'vwe found my own proposal of such type:
Hello Serguey,
Monday, September 6, 2010, 7:57:46 PM, you wrote:
http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell-cafe@haskell.org/msg15656.html
Will Data.Map with its' empty, insert, findMin, etc, methods conform
to your proposed type?
but Data.Map isn't sequential container. instead, it maps arbitrary
Hello Serguey,
Monday, September 6, 2010, 8:16:03 PM, you wrote:
Basically, you - and others, - propose to add another class isomorphic
to already present lists. I think, most benefits of that class can be
achieved by using list conversion and RULE pragma.
what i propose should allow to
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Neil Brown nc...@kent.ac.uk wrote:
On 06/09/10 11:23, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
We have overloaded numerical literals (Num.fromInteger)
and we can overload string literals (IsString.fromString),
so how about using list syntax ( [], : )
for anything list-like
Bulat,
btw, i also had proposal to automatically convert typeclasses used in
type declarations into constraints, [...]
Together with proposals i mentioned previously, it will allow to treat
existing code dealing with lists/strings as generic code working
with any sequential container type
2010/9/6 Bulat Ziganshin bulat.zigans...@gmail.com:
Hello Serguey,
Monday, September 6, 2010, 8:16:03 PM, you wrote:
Basically, you - and others, - propose to add another class isomorphic
to already present lists. I think, most benefits of that class can be
achieved by using list conversion
Am Montag, den 06.09.2010, 19:38 +0400 schrieb Bulat Ziganshin:
btw, i also had proposal to automatically convert typeclasses used in
type declarations into constraints, so that:
putStr :: StringLike - IO ()
treated as
putStr :: StringLike s = s - IO ()
This blurs the distinction between
18 matches
Mail list logo
