Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

Hello, while we are voting here, I kind of like this proposal, so +1 for me. I understand that some of the examples look strange to Haskell old-timers but, as Joachim points out, the behavior is very consistent. Besides, the "Less Obvious Examples" were selected so that they are, well, less

[Haskell] Position as lab docent Software Engineering at the University of Amsterdam

Dear all, I would like to draw your attention to the following job opening at the University of Amsterdam:

layout was Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

Hi, the layout language options are hard to find (at least in the user guide). Therefore I try to give an overview here. The relevant options I've found by using ghc-7.10.3 with option --supported-languages are: NondecreasingIndentation DoAndIfThenElse RelaxedLayout AlternativeLayoutRule

[Haskell] 3rd Call for Papers: OCL and Textual Modeling Tools and Textual Model Transformations (OCL 2016) - Less Than 10 Days Left To Submit Your Paper!

(Apologies for duplicates) Less than 10 days until the deadline! CALL FOR PAPERS 16th International Workshop on OCL and Textual Modeling Co-located with ACM/IEEE 19th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2016)

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

-1 for same reasons. On 8 July 2016 at 14:00, Henrik Nilsson wrote: > Hi all, > > Joachim Breitner wrote: > > > Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 13:09 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne: > > > I don't think so: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc > > /wiki/ArgumentDo#Bl > > [...]

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

Hi all, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 13:09 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne: > > I don't think so: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc > /wiki/ArgumentDo#Bl > [...] > Where is the outer set of parenthesis coming from? > > This is all not related to the ArgumentDo notation. Note

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

Hi, Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 13:09 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne: > I don't think so: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ArgumentDo#Bl > ockasaLHS explicit states that > >    do f &&& g >    x > > parses as > >    (f &&& g) x Correct > , so > >    foobar >       do f &&& g >       x > >

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

2016-07-08 12:28 GMT+02:00 Joachim Breitner : > Currenlty, > > foobar > (do f &&& g) > x > > calls foobar with two arguments, while > > (do f &&& g) > x > > calls (f &&& g) with one argument. The ArgumentDo proposal does not change > that, only

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

Hi, Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 11:32 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne: > 2016-07-08 9:09 GMT+02:00 Joachim Breitner : > > Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 08:35 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne: > > >    foobar > > >       do f &&& g > > >       x > > [...] Only with the proposed addition,

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

2016-07-08 9:09 GMT+02:00 Joachim Breitner : > Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 08:35 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne: > >foobar > > do f &&& g > > x > [...] Only with the proposed addition, it becomes an argument to foobar. > [...] > Huh? Nope! The Wiki page

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

Surely layout can bite you: f do x do y and I'm having difficulties to find the documentation for the various layout options. But this is no argument against this proposal! Improper use of white spaces can always be used to obfuscate code! Style guides are important. Furthermore, a

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

Hi, Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 08:35 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne: >    foobar >       do f &&& g >       x > > Should the x now be an argument of foobar (as it is currently) or the > "do"? If it is not an argument of the "do", suddenly things get very > context-dependent. Computers are good at

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

[ There is a trend to repeat one's argument about this proposed extension in various mailing lists/wiki pages/etc., so let's repeat myself, too... :-] 2016-07-07 19:44 GMT+02:00 Carter Schonwald : > the fact that its perilously close to looking like *1 typo* away from