Re: Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] re-definition of '.'
is the word OOP persuade so strange on you? No, my brain exploded by the examples and proposed rules made me look so When it is exploding I often start acting funnily. And I was fortunate enough not to begin biting the dogs and scratching the cats after an attempt to predict an order of application with two different (but not so) operators that bubble arguments left to right and then throw them backward and over again. bow-wow Something like PLEASE READ OUT statement in INTERCAL. There was nothing about OOP in my posting (as well as in yours). see any critics from you or any other FP purists Not sure I see what you mean by 'FP purists' in the context of Haskell language But whatever -, Haskell is still a pure language, isn't it? Looks like now it's time to change this inadvertence. Let it be impure, vulgar, dirty and scripting! And you are absolutely right. I missed the key of your idea. My brain is erupted, you know... :( ||amx ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] records proposals list
On 11/21/05, David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: class Coord a where get_x :: a - Double get_y :: a - Double set_x :: Double - a - a set_y :: Double - a - a I'd say this is a typical OO solution to the problem that doesn't exist Why do you need setters and getters for coordinate in purely functional language? Doesn't data Coord = Coord Double Double, functional composition and monads solve problems in way better than inheritance? The most impressive feature of haskell for me, as a former OO-design patterns-UML is great programmer was that I don't have to and in fact must not use OO and inheritance and can write code that doesn't leave you guessing what exactly it is doing and what is not. And that the language forces you make good design decisions and doesn't let you make wrong ones. Inheritance is no doubt one of the most sensless solutions for code reuse i have ever seen. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Records (was Re: [Haskell] Improvements to GHC)
On 11/18/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not saying it's impossible to make good use of (.), I'm saying that it's not crucial enough to warrant giving it the dot, which in my opinion is one of the best symbols (and I'd hand it over to record selection any day of the week!). I'm also saying that people tend to abuse the (.) operator when they start out because they think that less verbose == better, whereas most people, in my experience, tend to stop using (.) for all but the simplest cases (such as filte (not . null)) after a while to promote readability. I prefer adding a few lines with named sub-expressions to make things clearer. In case someone counts votes pro et contra of replacing (.) operator, I must say that find it one of the most useful and readable way for doing many different things (not only higher-order). And very compact too. And in my code it is very common operator. While if somebody, who at this moment counts my vote, will remove records from the language some day, I very likely wouldn't notice such a loss. And I can't say I'm very experienced haskell programmer. Actually I'm a beginner comparing my experience with other, particularly imperative OOP languages. And records with (.) as field selector (coupled with dumb constructors) will be the last thing i would miss in haskell. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] re-definition of '.'
2) sequential functions application in OOP style: [1..100] .map (2*) .sum Great proposal! And the only feature haskell will lack is computable go to! And if we add both haskell would become the most expressive and powerful programming language since INTERCAL --max ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
