| Just of out curiosity, what would be a compelling use case for singleton
| and unit unboxed tuples?
|
| For singleton unboxed tuples, any situation where you want to return a
| single value but not force its evaluation. This occurs for example
| with some low level functions in the
Am Donnerstag, den 22.12.2011, 00:02 +0100 schrieb Bas van Dijk:
On 21 December 2011 19:29, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote:
* There is a new feature constraint kinds (-XConstraintKinds):
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/stable/docs/html/users_guide/constraint-kind.html
I'm trying
| By the way, is there a reason behind the fact that “Constraint” uses the
| ordinary case, while “BOX” has all three letters capitalized? Wouldn’t
| it be more sensible if it were “Box” instead of “BOX”?
Only that BOX is a sort (currently the one and only sort), whereas Constraint
is a kind.
The semantics of Frege's records are layed out in its manual [1] in the
following sections:
4.2.1 Algebraic Data type Declaration - Constructors with labeled fields
3.2 Primary Expression
The Frege record system explanation is the first one that I could read and
immediately understand (oh, it
Hi Wolfgang,
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 13:51, Wolfgang Jeltsch
g9ks1...@acme.softbase.orgwrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 28.12.2011, 12:48 + schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones:
| By the way, is there a reason behind the fact that “Constraint” uses
the
| ordinary case, while “BOX” has all three letters
I've pushed a patch to the docs. Thanks
S
From: glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org
[mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of José Pedro
Magalhães
Sent: 28 December 2011 15:08
To: Wolfgang Jeltsch
Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: GHC
Quoth Greg Weber g...@gregweber.info,
...
Many of the built-in record proposals seem more ambitious (create a new
record from an existing one, generalize in some other direction). More
power or generalization could be very useful, but it can wait for later -
Haskell's records are glaringly bad
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Donn Cave d...@avvanta.com wrote:
Quoth Greg Weber g...@gregweber.info,
...
Many of the built-in record proposals seem more ambitious (create a new
record from an existing one, generalize in some other direction). More
power or generalization could be very
Quoth Greg Weber g...@gregweber.info,
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Donn Cave d...@avvanta.com wrote:
...
I would think row polymorphism is a must-have.
Perhaps if you want *extensible* records. If you would like to make some
progress with records in the near future rather than keeping
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Donn Cave d...@avvanta.com wrote:
Quoth Greg Weber g...@gregweber.info,
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Donn Cave d...@avvanta.com wrote:
...
I would think row polymorphism is a must-have.
Perhaps if you want *extensible* records. If you would like to
Quoting Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com:
for example. Singleton unboxed tuples are a perfectly valid data
type; it's just that we don't (now) have a name for their constructor.
Well, Haskell *does* have a mechanism for giving two different
implementations to a particular name...
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
