Re: recent changes to draft haskell prime report
Malcolm.Wallace: isaac jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can view the report itself here (I couldn't think of a good place to put it): http://hackage.haskell.org/~ijones/haskell-prime-report/report/haskell98-report-html/ I have fiddled with the build system, to enable the current state of the Report in the darcs repository to be generated into (at least) HTML, (hopefully also PDF and PS soon) automatically as every patch is checked in. In theory, the following link should always give you the most up-to-date version of the text: http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-report/report/haskell-prime-draft.html (I am wondering whether to make this a 'darcs test' thing, so if the Report fails to build, your patch will be rejected. Any opinions?) That seems reasonable. -- Don ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Re: recent changes to draft haskell prime report
I have fiddled with the build system, to enable the current state of the Report in the darcs repository to be generated into (at least) HTML, (hopefully also PDF and PS soon) automatically as every patch is checked do we still need PS? in. In theory, the following link should always give you the most up-to-date version of the text: http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-report/report/haskell-prime-draft.html (I am wondering whether to make this a 'darcs test' thing, so if the Report fails to build, your patch will be rejected. Any opinions?) Good idea. Cheers, Andres ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Re: defaults
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is your proposal supposed to be backwards compatible with Haskell 98 for programs that don't have default declarations? Yes, it is supposed to be backwards compatible. If so, then I offer a counter example: toRational pi will default pi to Double in Haskell 98, but will be an error under your proposal, because the two constraints (Real and Floating) disagree on the default. Well spotted. So there are some expressions that are defaulted in H'98 but would not pass type-checking with my proposal. (1) Are examples like this common? I am guessing not. You mention Enum/Fractional combinations, but arguably Float and Double do not belong in Enum anyway. (2) The new rule is conservative - it does not silently change the semantics, but it does reject more programs. Such programs are easily fixed by adding a type signature. If these two points are valid, then I think the slight loss of backward compatibility is acceptable? Regards, Malcolm ___ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
