On 01/09/13 07:02, yi lu wrote:
I want to know if it is possible that I use strings without .
If I type
*Preludefoo bar*
which actually I mean
*Preludefoo bar*
However I don't want to type s.
I have noticed if *bar* is predefined or it is a number, it can be used as
arguments. But can
On 13-09-01 02:02 AM, yi lu wrote:
I have noticed if *bar* is predefined or it is a number, it can be used
as arguments. But can other strings be used this way? Like in bash, we
can use *ping 127.0.0.1* where *127.0.0.1* is an argument.
Does Bash have a rich type system, like Haskell?
Does
On 13-09-01 02:41 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
It's a bit like asking whether you can do addition everywhere by just
typing the numbers to each other (no cheating and defining number
literals as functions ;) ).
To your horror, common math language does some of that.
When 3 and ½ are typed
Not that I really want to encourage such a stringly typed practice, but
it wouldn't really be that much of a stretch.
* Use haskell-src-exts[0] and haskell-src-meta[1] to make a quasiquoter
that can parse Haskell syntax
* Use syb[2] or some other generics to find VarE and ConE expressions. In
On 1/09/2013, at 6:02 PM, yi lu wrote:
I want to know if it is possible that I use strings without .
If I type
Preludefoo bar
which actually I mean
Preludefoo bar
However I don't want to type s.
I have noticed if bar is predefined or it is a number, it can be used as
arguments. But
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
A slogan I have programmed by since I first met C and recognised
how vastly superior to PL/I it was for text manipulation _because_
it didn't have a proper string type is Strings are Wrong!.
I wonder if you notice the irony in your
On 2/09/2013, at 3:55 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
A slogan I have programmed by since I first met C and recognised
how vastly superior to PL/I it was for text manipulation _because_
it didn't have a proper string type is Strings are
