Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:38:21 +0200, Jerzy Karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> They are heavily used in Clean, so, there *are* people who see a
> need for them in a lazy language.
The Clean implementation doesn't inline functions across modules,
right?
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PR
Thomas Hallgren says:
| The following program was accepted by previous versions of
| GHC, but is not in GHC 5.02
|
| module HidingBug where
| import Prelude hiding (lookup)
|
| lookup env x = Prelude.lookup x env
|
| Instead, you get the error message
|
| HidingBug.hs
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | GHC is oddly particular about decimal points in "read"-ing in
> | of Doubles in scientific notation. It seems that read
> | "3.0e-06" is acceptable but read "3e-06" is not (both read
> | "3" and read "3.0" work fine as Doubles). It's the same
| GHC is oddly particular about decimal points in "read"-ing in
| of Doubles in scientific notation. It seems that read
| "3.0e-06" is acceptable but read "3e-06" is not (both read
| "3" and read "3.0" work fine as Doubles). It's the same in
| nhc and hugs. Perhaps this is some standard somewh
| semantics). In doing so, I've come across an oddity. It seems
| that Haskell does not have the principal type property
It looks to me that you are correct. I hadn't realised that consequence
of the dreaded M.R.It may be "well known in the Haskell community",
it wasn't well known to me.
J
Dylan Thurston:
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 01:02:07PM +0100, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
> > Sadly, there's not a concrete proposal - it seems that no one sees a
> > need for macros in a lazy language. Most of what they do can be
> > achieved through laziness - you can write "if" in Haskell already
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 08:33:15PM +0900, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> So when I read the "Syntactic Sugar for Arrows" proposal, my initial
> reaction is "Wow, that's a little complicated. It doesn't look like
> syntactic sugar to me."
Why, thank you!
> This contrasts with the do-notation, which doe
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 01:02:07PM +0100, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
> Sadly, there's not a concrete proposal - it seems that no one sees a
> need for macros in a lazy language. Most of what they do can be
> achieved through laziness - you can write "if" in Haskell already, for
> example, whereas
> Very good. Is there a concrete proposal for such macros? I think the
> arrow notation would be a harder test case than any of the existing
> syntactic sugar; I'd be curious to see what it looked like. (And is
> there support for adding these macros to Haskell?)
Sadly, there's not a concrete
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 12:39:09PM +0100, Keith Wansbrough wrote:
> Dylan writes:
>
> > Incidentally, it seems to me that this is one case where a Lisp-like
> > macro facility might be useful. With Haskell, it is impossible to
> > play with bindings, while presumably you can do this with good Li
Dylan writes:
> Incidentally, it seems to me that this is one case where a Lisp-like
> macro facility might be useful. With Haskell, it is impossible to
> play with bindings, while presumably you can do this with good Lisp
> macro systems.
Yes, this is one thing you can do with good macro syste
So when I read the "Syntactic Sugar for Arrows" proposal, my initial
reaction is "Wow, that's a little complicated. It doesn't look like
syntactic sugar to me." (Err, no offense, I hope.) This contrasts
with the do-notation, which does look like syntactic sugar: you can
rewrite any do expressio
12 matches
Mail list logo
