Re: Relection

2000-01-26 Thread Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:34:59 -, Chris Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > One thing I dont like, is going through IO, although I guess this > wouldnt matter so much. *Of course* it has to be in IO! Loading an external function has everything to do with I/O. When you write fooBar x = (getFun

Re: Relection

2000-01-26 Thread George Russell
Chris Angus wrote: > One thing I dont like, is going through IO, although I guess this wouldnt If you're going to have reflection you might as well have dynamic loading, in which case you simply have to go through IO, because you're interacting with previously unchecked bits of the outside world.

RE: Relection

2000-01-26 Thread Chris Angus
7;; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: Relection Chris Angus wrote: > > Put simply > > What do people think about being able to access functions from other modules > without > importing the module. > > i.e. Rather than > > ---S

Re: Relection

2000-01-25 Thread Fergus Henderson
On 25-Jan-2000, S. Alexander Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This discussion feels like deja-vu all over again! > What is wrong with the various generic programming extensions that have > already been discussed? Derive, PolyP and their progeny? I don't think there's anything fundamentally w

Re: Relection

2000-01-25 Thread S. Alexander Jacobson
This discussion feels like deja-vu all over again! What is wrong with the various generic programming extensions that have already been discussed? Derive, PolyP and their progeny? -Alex- ___ S. Alexander Jacobson S

Re: Relection

2000-01-25 Thread Fergus Henderson
On 25-Jan-2000, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:12:32 +0100, jwit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > > > What I'm getting at is some kind of way to get your > > hands on an abstract syntax representation of a Haskell > > expression/datatype/module, modifying i

Re: Relection

2000-01-25 Thread Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:12:32 +0100, jwit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > What I'm getting at is some kind of way to get your > hands on an abstract syntax representation of a Haskell > expression/datatype/module, modifying it, re-typechecking it, > and then transforming it back into a Haskell value. I

Re: Relection

2000-01-25 Thread George Russell
Chris Angus wrote: > > Put simply > > What do people think about being able to access functions from other modules > without > importing the module. > > i.e. Rather than > > ---Start- > import Foo > -- call f > callFoof x = f x > --End > > W

RE: Relection

2000-01-25 Thread jwit
Hello everybody, The concept of reflection can also be taken further than Chris' idea, which is fairly useful in it's own right, but could possibly be achieved by some smart FFI-wizard (not sure, this idea just popped into my head). What I'm getting at is some kind of way to get your hands on an

RE: Relection

2000-01-25 Thread Chris Angus
Put simply What do people think about being able to access functions from other modules without importing the module. i.e. Rather than ---Start- import Foo -- call f callFoof x = f x --End We can do ---Start- callFoo

RE: Relection

2000-01-25 Thread Chris Angus
By reflection I mean the sort of thing Java does in java.lang.reflect i.e. given the name/type of a function we can retrieve that function and subsequently use it in the same way that in java given the name of a class we can create instances of that class. i.e. it is quite common to have dial