y are just an efficiency hack,
and one which is already looking somewhat dated -- a bit like the
"register" keyword in C.
This is quite different to the kind of macros that would
allow you to extend the language syntax to support things
like arrow notation or views.
--
Fergus Henderso
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
you can write "if" in Haskell already, for
> > example, whereas you need a macro for it in Lisp. Your arrow notation
> > example may provide some motivation, though.
>
> I wonder if macros could also be used to implement views.
They are heavily used in Clean, so, ther
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
already, for
> example, whereas you need a macro for it in Lisp. Your arrow notation
> example may provide some motivation, though.
I wonder if macros could also be used to implement views.
I think there were other times I wanted to play similar tricks with
scoping, but I don't remem
> 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
h99:Macros
>
> Wansbrough, 1999. Macros and Preprocessing in Haskell
>
> especially section 8.
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
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
I've updated my proposal for a sugared notation for arrows:
http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~ross/arrows/sugar.html
with a very rough preprocessor for the new constructs, based on hsparser
(which was a great help). None of this will make sense unless you've
read John Hughes's arrows paper.
A
10 matches
Mail list logo
