On Dec 5, 2007 7:43 AM, Luis Cabellos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have a question, what's the best way to program?
- put all the signatures in the Haskell Code?
- Only put the type signatures needed to compile (like monomorphism
errors or ambiguous signature)?
Until now, I prefer the
| Nothing deep. Just that = means so many things that it seemed better
| to use a different notation.
|
|
| How about ==? Only one meaning so far, and that both on the term level and
| equivalent to the constraint
I'm quite happy with ~! It's sufficiently different from = that someone
Nothing deep. Just that = means so many things that it seemed better to use
a different notation.
S
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
| Isaac Dupree
| Sent: 04 December 2007 15:59
| To: Jan-Willem Maessen
| Cc:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| Nothing deep. Just that = means so many things that it seemed better
| to use a different notation.
|
|
| How about ==? Only one meaning so far, and that both on the term level and
| equivalent to the constraint
I'm quite happy with ~! It's sufficiently
Hello Simon,
Wednesday, December 5, 2007, 7:05:22 PM, you wrote:
Anyway, while on this subject, I am considering making the following change:
make all operator symbols into type constructors
(currently they are type variables)
i like it. will the same apply to the type
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Nothing deep. Just that = means so many things that it seemed better
to use a different notation.
How about ==? Only one meaning so far, and that both on the term level and
equivalent to the constraint.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ivanova is
Am Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2007 13:43 schrieb Luis Cabellos:
Hi,
I have a question, what's the best way to program?
- put all the signatures in the Haskell Code?
- Only put the type signatures needed to compile (like monomorphism errors
or ambiguous signature)?
Until now, I prefer the
Hi,
I have a question, what's the best way to program?
- put all the signatures in the Haskell Code?
- Only put the type signatures needed to compile (like monomorphism errors
or ambiguous signature)?
Until now, I prefer the second one, but when I use the -Wall option, there's
a lot of
Am Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2007 17:05 schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones:
[…]
Anyway, while on this subject, I am considering making the following
change:
make all operator symbols into type constructors
(currently they are type variables)
This would be highly problematic!
Simon Peyton-Jones:
Nothing deep. Just that = means so many things that it seemed
better to use a different notation.
Also, using = would have entailed significant changes to GHC's
parser. Type constraints are in the same syntactic category as types
and types can appear as part of
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones:
Nothing deep. Just that = means so many things that it seemed
better to use a different notation.
Also, using = would have entailed significant changes to GHC's
parser. Type constraints are in the same syntactic category as types
and types
Isaac Dupree:
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones:
Nothing deep. Just that = means so many things that it seemed
better to use a different notation.
Also, using = would have entailed significant changes to GHC's
parser. Type constraints are in the same syntactic category as
12 matches
Mail list logo
