http://haskell.galois.com/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/FlexiblePartialApplication
On 3/7/06, Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
there was some proposal for introducing a special syntax where f x _ z or
f x ? z means \y - f x y z. Is there some information on the Haskell'
a second oversight, in variation B: CHR rules are selected by matching,
not by unification (which is quite essential to modelling the way type
class inference works). this means that the idea of generating memo_
constraints for the instance fdis and relying on the clas fdi rules to
use that
there were a couple of issues Simon raised that I hadn't responded to in
my earlier reply. since no-one else has taken them on so far, either, ..
- Haskell would need to be a lot more specific about exactly where
context reduction takes place. Consider
f xs x = xs == [x]
Do we infer the type
Am Sonntag, 5. März 2006 02:59 schrieb isaac jones:
[...]
2. If you don't have a wiki account, Log in with username guest and password
haskell' to create and edit tickets.
How do I get a account for the wiki?
[...]
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
___
In Haskell we write `f` in order to infixify the identifier f. In ABC
the stuff between backquotes is not limited to an identifier, but any
expression may occur there. This would allow one to write e.g.
xs `zipWith (+)` ys
In general expr1 `expr2` expr3 = (expr2) expr1 expr3
I think it
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
In Haskell we write `f` in order to infixify the identifier f. In ABC the
stuff between backquotes is not limited to an identifier, but any expression
may occur there. This would allow one to write e.g.
xs `zipWith (+)` ys
In general expr1
It is with some hesitation that I want to bring up another point, in
which Haskell' could be an improvement above Haskell: the offside rule.
Although I manage to live with it, I encountered many problems with
it in the past:
1) it is impossible to explain the precise workings of the rule
Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
xs `zipWith (+)` ys
There is one problem with this: it doesn't nest [...]
Another problem is that it's not clear how to declare the fixity of these
things. Should they always have the default fixity? Should they be
I agree with it being complicated. I don't know of any compiler
that implements it correctly. Do you say your combinators do?
That said, I don't think it can be replaced easily without breaking
existing code, so I'm unwilling to change unless someone can show
an alternative that handles 99.9%
