Hello Wolfgang, Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 1:29:24 AM, you wrote:
you said WHAT you think but not said WHY? my motivation is to be able to use myriads of already implemented algorithms on new datatypes >> as i said, shebang patterns allow only to specify that IMPLEMENTATION >> of some function is strict. this helps only when this function are >> called directly. they can't help when function is passed as parameter >> or enclosed in data structure or a part of class. the same about >> datatypes - i can't declare what some algorithm works only with >> strict lists. i try to find extensions what will allow to specify >> strictness in every case where now we forced to use lazy computations >> >> the concrete syntax what i propose may be wrong WJ> Well, it's probably nice sometimes to have types which guarantee the WJ> strictness of certain components. For example, it might be good to have a WJ> list type where the strictness of the elements is guaranteed. But I'm sure WJ> that it's wrong to try to achieve this by annotating type arguments like in WJ> [!a]. I think, this approach is wrong, not just the syntax. WJ> Best wishes, WJ> Wolfgang WJ> _______________________________________________ WJ> Haskell-prime mailing list WJ> Haskell-prime@haskell.org WJ> http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime