Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> It's not hard to find a text editor, use w.g. wily. It's widely available.
But it is hard to use some nonstandard (i.e. neither vi nor emacs)
editor just for one special kind of source code - it means to lose
all the keybindings, highlight settings, 100-lines-of-defi
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Joe English wrote:
> Along the same lines, are there accepted conventional infix operators
> for the functions with types:
>
> (a0 -> b0) -> (a1 -> b1) -> (a0,a1) -> (b0,b1)
> (a -> b0) -> (a -> b1) -> a -> (b0,b1))
>
> (a0 -> b0) -> (a1 -> b1) ->
Brian Boutel writes:
> [...]
>
> If the supply of suitable Ascii symbols seems inadequate, remember
> that Haskell uses Unicode. There is no reason to limit symbols to
> those in the Ascii set.
While we're on the subject, I suggest Unicode as a Hugs/GHC wish list
item. In particular, I'd l
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
[snip]
> But when Unicode finally comes... How should Haskell's textfile IO
> work?
I don't think the current standard functions for textfile IO would
have too many problems. You can do hSeek in Haskell, but
"The offset is given in terms of 8-bit bytes" (library
On Sunday, 10 October 1999 00:09, Lennart Augustsson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
>
> > Sat, 9 Oct 1999 12:42:20 +1300, Brian Boutel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> >
> > > Be careful. '<-' is two symbols. Replacing it by one symbol can change the
> > > semanti
On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 04:52:20PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'd include composition, function products (as in Joe English's
> message) and operations on boolean predicates:
>> (f &&& g) x = f x && g x
>> (f ||| g) x = f x || g x
>> notF f x = not (f x)
One way to get around this would be
On 9 Oct, Heribert Schuetz wrote:
[(f <| g) x = f (g x); (f |> g) x = g (f x)]
>"Use symmetric glyphs for commutative operations and asymmetric glyphs
>for non-commutative operations. Reflect glyphs for flipped operations."
That would make me happy.
> which I would suggest as a gener
Jonathan King writes:
> How about:
>
> f |> g |> h |> ...
>
> for [reverse composition], and
>
> g <| f
>
> for "normal" composition?
I like this because it follows the easy-to-remember rule
"Use symmetric glyphs for
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> Sat, 9 Oct 1999 12:42:20 +1300, Brian Boutel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>
> > Be careful. '<-' is two symbols. Replacing it by one symbol can change the
> > semantics of a program by affecting layout.
>
> No, because only the indent before the first non-whitespa
On Saturday, 9 October 1999 12:00, Clifford Beshers [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
>
> But we do have bitmapped displays, lots of fonts, graphical
> applications, etc. Perhaps augmenting JH/SPJ's pretty printer to
> generate LaTeX or PostScript with real symbols would be a good first
> step.
Sat, 9 Oct 1999 12:42:20 +1300, Brian Boutel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Be careful. '<-' is two symbols. Replacing it by one symbol can change the
> semantics of a program by affecting layout.
No, because only the indent before the first non-whitespace character
in a line matters. Haskell pro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please no! I want to be able to read other folks programmes
Me to ! My life depends on it - most of the time I am debugging other peoples
programs !
Bart Demoen
On 8 Oct, Jonathan King wrote:
> I think you might see the point. (No pun back there, I promise...) I
> understand where using "." to mean composition came from, and I know that
> it's a long-standing tradition in at least the Haskell community, but I
> don't think the visual correspondence
On 8 Oct, Christopher Jeris wrote:
> Personal taste in infix operators seems to be another good argument for a
> camlp4-style preprocessor for Haskell.
Please no! I want to be able to read other folks programmes and vice
versa. The whole point of suggesting a particular glyph on this foram
On 8 Oct, Joe English wrote:
> [I wrote]:
> > Just now I thought of .~ from . for composition and ~ (tilde, but
> > commonly called twiddle) for twiddling the order about.
> I've also seen .| and |. used for this purpose (by
> analogy with Unix pipes.)
> John Hughes' Arrow library spells
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 19:01:07 +0100 (BST), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call reverse
> composition (I can't find it in the archive - needs a search option?)
>
> Just now I thought of .~ from . for composit
Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call reverse
composition (I can't find it in the archive - needs a search option?)
Just now I thought of .~ from . for composition and ~ (tilde, but
commonly called twiddle) for twiddling the order about.
Maybe we could adopt that as n
Re: Syntax
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Even though I disagreed with the
use of . in the original case, I was
persuaded, and still think it ought to be a single
character. Unfortunately most of the other good candidates have been
used elsewhere.
That's right. Limited charact
Personal taste in infix operators seems to be another good argument for a
camlp4-style preprocessor for Haskell. For instance I would like to use
'o' for composition (since anybody who uses 'o' for a variable gets what
they deserve!) but I guess that would make the lexer not so nice.
I would also
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Hamilton Richards Jr. wrote:
>
> At 1:01 PM -0500 10/8/1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call reverse
> >composition (I can't find it in the archive - needs a search option?)
> >
>
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call reverse
> composition (I can't find it in the archive - needs a search option?)
>
> Just now I thought of .~ from . for composition and ~ (tilde, but
> commonly called tw
At 1:01 PM -0500 10/8/1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call reverse
>composition (I can't find it in the archive - needs a search option?)
>
>Just now I thought of .~ from . for composition and ~ (tilde, but
>commonly called tw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Some time ago there was a discussion about what to call reverse
> composition (I can't find it in the archive - needs a search option?)
>
> Just now I thought of .~ from . for composition and ~ (tilde, but
> commonly called twiddle) for twidd
23 matches
Mail list logo
