[Incidentally, if I did control Hugs, I wouldn't make the suggested
change to dlet/with at this point. Marcin says I have no deep
reasons ... Hmm, I don't know about deep, but I do have reasons
for this, both technical and pragmatic. But I'm not going to go into
detail because I don't
| Marcin Kowalczyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
| I would like to replace with and dlet with let. But SimonPJ
| said he won't do it in ghc unless Hugs does it too, and Mark P Jones
| said he won't do it in Hugs now (without deep reasons: no
| people/hours to do that, and no plans to release
Surely we could use *zero* extra identifiers by writing:
(ia) let ?x = foo in bar
(iia) bar where ?x = foo
i.e., s/dlet/let/ and s/with/where/ .
I thought this was mentioned at the Haskell Implementors' Meeting.
I believe that is the favoured change amongst those that want
I wrote:
eval (Let v e1 e2) = eval e2 with ?env = (v, eval e1) : ?env
[Blush] Andy Gill pointed out that this example was ambiguous because
it wasn't clear if I wanted this Let to be recursive or non-recursive.
My intention was that this was a non-recursive let.
--
Alastair Reid
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
[...]
1. [happy]. Use 'let'
2. [consent]. Use 'dlet' or 'with'
3. [hate] Use both 'dlet' and 'with'
Would the Hugs folk be willing to adopt (2)?
I'm getting a little bit lost in this thread: Everybody seems to
agree that stealing identifiers is bad, stealing a
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I only added 'with' because I did not want to steal *two* new keywords.
One is bad enough! I proposed using 'let' (not dlet), with the '?' to
distinguish dynamic from lexical bindings, but did not achieve
consensus.
I only added `with' to GHC originally because
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
"Jeffrey R. Lewis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
Lack of consensus = the status quo stays.
My order of preference:
1. [happy]. Use 'let'
2. [consent]. Use 'dlet' or 'with'
3. [hate] Use both 'dlet' and 'with'
Would the Hugs folk be
"Jeffrey R. Lewis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
"Jeffrey R. Lewis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
Lack of consensus = the status quo stays.
My order of preference:
1. [happy]. Use 'let'
2. [consent]. Use 'dlet' or 'with'
3. [hate] Use
Jeffrey R. Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
Lack of consensus = the status quo stays.
My order of preference:
1. [happy]. Use 'let'
2. [consent]. Use 'dlet' or 'with'
3. [hate] Use both 'dlet' and 'with'
Would the Hugs folk be willing to adopt (2)?
That would certainly be
I only added 'with' because I did not want to steal *two* new keywords.
One is bad enough! I proposed using 'let' (not dlet), with the '?' to
distinguish dynamic from lexical bindings, but did not achieve
consensus.
Lack of consensus = the status quo stays.
My order of preference:
1.
Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:31:07 -0600 (MDT), Alastair Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
Can the GHC people, the Hugs people and the implicit parameter
designers come to some sort of agreement and implement the result?
I would like to replace "with" and "dlet" with "let". But SimonPJ said
he won't do
Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:41:45 -0700, Erik Meijer [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
As I was not involved in that discussion, why should the keyword
"with" not be introduced?
There are at least two libraries in hslibs which would like to use
'with' as an identifier.
Foreign currently uses 'withObject',
Marcin Kowalczyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
I would like to replace "with" and "dlet" with "let". But SimonPJ
said he won't do it in ghc unless Hugs does it too, and Mark P Jones
said he won't do it in Hugs now (without deep reasons: no
people/hours to do that, and no plans to release next
As I was not involved in that discussion, why should the keyword "with" not
be introduced?
Just curious,
Erik
- Original Message -
From: "Alastair Reid" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:31 AM
Subject: Syntax for implicit
14 matches
Mail list logo
