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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Chris Angus wrote:
| and values could be requested from it a la...
|
| lookup :: a -> Name -> Maybe a
|
| Where the initial "a" is needed to make it all typesafe
I don't understand why this extra argument is needed.
| Reflect.lookup (bot::String -> IO Image) (makeFnName name)
If it
ent: 25 January 2000 11:13
To: Chris Angus
Subject: Relection
>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I posted this to comp.lang.functional a while ago but (apparently) no
one
> had an opinion which
> I cant believe is the
quot;Function that knows how to read "
+ suffix +" files does not exist")
Just f -> f filename
-Original Message-
From: Peter Hancock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 January 2000 11:13
To: Chris Angus
Subject: Relection
>>>>> "
I posted this to comp.lang.functional a while ago but (apparently) no one
had an opinion which
I cant believe is the case :-)
Chris
I would be interested to know people's views on adding reflection to Haskell
to get Factory-like behaviour.
I was thinking that other modules could "export" val
13 matches
Mail list logo