X-Comment1: #
X-Comment2: # uk.ac.glasgow.cs has changed to uk.ac.glasgow.dcs #
X-Comment3: # If this address does not work please ask your mail#
X-Comment4: # administrator to update your NRS & mailer tables. #
X-
Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Thu, 5 Dec 91 16:31:07 GMT
Original-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry if you see this twice, but there seem to have been some kind of
delivery problem when I sent it the first time. There has also been
a question added at the end.
1. On p. 24, 125 it says
" t
Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Thu, 5 Dec 91 12:13:51 GMT
Original-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I wonder if the following syntax change is not too late for the
| SIGPLAN version of the Report? I actually view this as a FIX to
| something I consider WRONG, since I believe (correct me if I'm wrong!)
| th
Original-Via: uk.ac.ic.doc; Thu, 5 Dec 91 11:23:27 GMT
Simon's post about exporting type synonyms rekindled a nagging
question about Haskell. Why do we have both "type" and "data"
keywords? It seems like redundant syntactic clutter to me. Why not
just use "type" for both? I think "data" is an
Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Thu, 5 Dec 91 04:33:50 GMT
Original-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| 1. On p. 24, 125 it says
|
| " type ->type_1 -> type_2
| ...
| Function arrow associate to the right."
|Why not be just as explicit for type expressions as for expressions:
I
Original-Via: uk.ac.nsf; Wed, 4 Dec 91 19:21:59 GMT
1. On p. 24, 125 it says
" type ->type_1 -> type_2
...
Function arrow associate to the right."
Why not be just as explicit for type expressions as for expressions:
type ->btype
|
X-Comment1: #
X-Comment2: # uk.ac.glasgow.cs has changed to uk.ac.glasgow.dcs #
X-Comment3: # If this address does not work please ask your mail#
X-Comment4: # administrator to update your NRS & mailer tables. #
X-
X-Comment1: #
X-Comment2: # uk.ac.glasgow.cs has changed to uk.ac.glasgow.dcs #
X-Comment3: # If this address does not work please ask your mail#
X-Comment4: # administrator to update your NRS & mailer tables. #
X-
