Quoting Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks1...@acme.softbase.org:
Am Mittwoch, den 28.12.2011, 12:48 + schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones:
Only that BOX is a sort (currently the one and only sort), whereas
Constraint is a kind. I'm not sure that BOX should ever be displayed
to users.
Okay, this makes sense
(or a generalization thereof), since
one can always use stToIO if operation in the IO monad is really
required.
Lauri Alanko
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell
it extremely convenient that I can write purely
imperative code with a simple syntax like do { foo; bar; baz }. I'd
like similar simplicity when dealing with arrows, too.
Lauri Alanko
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED
and predictable
typing is important, and it's ok for things to look funny because,
after all, funny things _are_ going on when special optimizations are
applied.
Lauri Alanko
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
for module A.B.C? Then you don't need to have a
long, mostly empty dummy hierarchy.
Lauri Alanko
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
. With heavy specialization, of course. This would be
especially useful if the FFI (especially withCString) supported it.
Or alternatively, maybe the foldr/build rewriting trick could be used to
eliminate some redundant conversions between representations?
Just throwing ideas in the air here.
Lauri Alanko
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:14:24PM +0200, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Lauri Alanko wrote:
Why? This makes composing and subtyping impossible:
instance (MonadTrans t, MonadState s m, Monad (t m))
= MonadState s (t m) where
get = lift get
put
