I don't mind whether discussion is on Haskell-prime or on Haskell-cafe (I read both). But I don't think it should be on the main Haskell mailing list, which is advertised as relatively low-bandwidth. It's an excellent place to start discussions but if we carried them all though there, a bunch of people would unsubscribe. I think anyway. (That's why we started Haskell-cafe in the first place.)
Simon | -----Original Message----- | From: Iavor Diatchki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: 24 January 2007 17:50 | To: Simon Peyton-Jones | Cc: Duncan Coutts; Malcolm Wallace; [email protected] | Subject: Re: [Haskell] Views in Haskell | | Hello, | Is this really a good idea? This seems a lot more relevant to the | Haskell mailing list then haskell-prime (at least to me)---it is a | language extension that is not implemented, there are a number of | different ways to implement it, and we have no significant experience | using it. As such, it seems that it is not relevant to haskell-prime, | at least in my understanding of the goals of Haskell'. On the other | hand, the proposal would probably benefit from the input of the wider | audience of the Haskell mailing list, after all, this is an extension | to Haskell. Despite the fact that haskell-prime is an open mailing | list, there are a number of people who are not subscribed to it | because they are not interested in the standardization effort. | -Iavor | | On 1/24/07, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > Let me urge everyone, once more, to conduct this interesting discussion on the haskell-prime | mailing list. It's quite open --- anyone can subscribe --- and we'll avoid spamming the main Haskell | list. | > | > I'll send responses there. | > | > Simon | > | > | -----Original Message----- | > | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Duncan | Coutts | > | Sent: 24 January 2007 15:25 | > | To: Malcolm Wallace | > | Cc: [email protected] | > | Subject: Re: [Haskell] Views in Haskell | > | | > | On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 14:58 +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote: | > | | > | > To add to the bikeshed discussion of syntax, did you consider and reject | > | > the obvious use of '<-' rather than '->', which would more closely match | > | > the pattern guard syntax? | > | | > | > Using the '<-' arrow does not seem to obscure | > | > this feature too much: | > | > parsePacket ((n, (val,bs) <- bits n) <- bits 3) = ... | > | > vs | > | > parsePacket (bits 3 -> (n, (bits n -> val bs))) = ... | > | | > | The main drawback to this is that we don't get the left to right binders | > | and uses. That is we use 'n' as a variable binder when we extract the 3 | > | bits and then use that later to decide how many bits to extract. With | > | the '<-' form the flow is all back and forth rather than left to right. | > | > | > ...etc... | > | > _______________________________________________ | > Haskell mailing list | > [email protected] | > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell | > _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
