Magnus Carlsson wrote:
> Here are some questions for the Haskell-98 enthusiasts.
I'm not sure if I'm a Haskell-98 enthusiast, I still call myself
a Haskell enthusiast.
> 1. Why is the following declaration group illegal?
>
> f :: String
> f = g 1 ++ g True
>
> g :: Show a => a -> Strin
Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
> forwarding to the mailing list is restricted to off-hours only at the
> moment, but thought I'd suggest a solution to you before then - use a
> (universally quantified) pattern matching function rather than a
> pattern binding, i.e.,
>
> deTIM :: TIM s a -> ST s a
> deTI
Here are some questions for the Haskell-98 enthusiasts.
1. Why is the following declaration group illegal?
f :: String
f = g 1 ++ g True
g :: Show a => a -> String
g x = fst (show x, show f)
2. Is there a way to modify the signatures to make it legal?
/M
Hi,
I have a problem with defining a new monad based on the state monad ST.
The new monad is a combination of ST and the Maybe monad. It is intended for
computations that use many states and may fail. If a part of the computation
fails the whole computation fails. (I want to use it for type inf
Reg writes:
> This little problem raises two challenges for compiler developers:
> (a) improving diagnostic messages (a perennial issue), and (b) (semi)
> automating error correction. In this case the diagnostic message
> is pretty good, except that is doesn't indicate where the IO term
> is or w
