+1
While it might work for teaching, it's not reasonable to ask software
developers who want to write useful software to depend on haskell98
instead of base if they want more relevant types.
I'd go one step further and say that we're not just talking about
whether someone is an advanced user
Hi Iavor,
On May 27, 2013, at 6:18 PM, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Daniel Gorín dgo...@dc.uba.ar wrote:
On May 24, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
How about (in Haskell98)
module Data.List ( foldr, ...)
import qualified
I agree that it would be unfortunate to complicate the Prelude
definitions of foldr and such by generalizing to type classes like
Foldable. This proposal seems attractive to me as a way to reconcile
abstraction when it's needed, and simplicity for beginners. However,
it does seem like a common
I generally agree with Iavor's points, but if this is such an issue, why
not make Prelude more general by default and have a special 'Prelude.Basic'
with the more specific type signatures for beginners? The general Prelude
would be implicitly imported as now, unless the module imported
This is basically what you get by default already with the raw proposal we've
been talking about -- the Preludes in the haskell98 and haskell2010 remain
unmodified by this proposal and are available for teaching use.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 27, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Andrew Farmer
Oh my! Now it's getting complicated.
Hopefully not so!
* I suppose that if Data.List re-exports foldr, it would go with the more
specific type.
Yes.
* In your example, can I also use the more-polymorphic foldr, perhaps by
saying Data.Foldable.foldr?
Yes. More precisely, if you
How about (in Haskell98)
module Data.List ( foldr, ...)
import qualified Data.Foldable
foldr :: (a - b - b) - b - [a] - b
foldr = Data.Foldable.foldr
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:glasgow-haskell-
|
On May 24, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
How about (in Haskell98)
module Data.List ( foldr, ...)
import qualified Data.Foldable
foldr :: (a - b - b) - b - [a] - b
foldr = Data.Foldable.foldr
It would not be the same! Using your example one will get
Oh my! Now it's getting complicated.
* I suppose that if Data.List re-exports foldr, it would go with the more
specific type.
* In your example, can I also use the more-polymorphic foldr, perhaps by saying
Data.Foldable.foldr?
* I wonder what would happen if Data.Foo specialised foldr in a
Hi all,
Given the ongoing discussion in the libraries mailing list on replacing (or
removing) list functions in the Prelude in favor of the Foldable / Traversable
generalizations, I was wondering if this wouldn't be better handled by a mild
(IMO) extension to the module system.
In a
10 matches
Mail list logo
