On 09-Nov-1998, S. Alexander Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> > But if we have to add new syntax to make it work then it
> > is getting to be more trouble than its worth.
>
> Since the application is code generation, I don't think the extra
> syn
Lennart wrote:
>PS. Or maybe you're firmly in the Microsludge camp now
>where source code is never revealed? :-) :-)
H/Direct and HaskellScript are neither trick nor treat to them
(http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html) yet.
Anyway, you probably don't *want* to see their source code, judging
On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> > Well, it depends on what you call *strong*. The only reason that I heard is
> > that it prevents users from making possibly unwanted errors.
>
> Another reason is that allowing definitions to be split up
> without any special syntax indicating this
On 07-Nov-1998, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Another reason is that allowing definitions to be split up
> >without any special syntax indicating this would harm readability.
...
> This is *exectly* the reasoning I am opposed to. It is not to the language
> designer to decide for me wh
> This is *exectly* the reasoning I am opposed to. It is not to the language
> designer to decide for me what is readable of not!
But what if someone else has to read your programs?
Maybe a uniform style isn't so horrible.
-- Lennart
PS. Or maybe you're firmly in the Microsludge camp now
w
On 06-Nov-1998, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> >[...]
> >[ describes that he wants interleave the definitions of several functions ]
> >[ but Haskell does not allow this ]
> >[...]
> >This restriction is very frustrating because I want to add names to a
> >function lookup t
On 7 Nov, Erik Meijer wrote:
> >Another reason is that allowing definitions to be split up
> >without any special syntax indicating this would harm readability.
[...]
>
> This is *exectly* the reasoning I am opposed to. It is not to the language
> designer to decide for me what is readable
>Another reason is that allowing definitions to be split up
>without any special syntax indicating this would harm readability.
>If I see a definition, I can't be sure it's complete without
>examining the whole module.
>
>Since the order of clauses affects the semantics, I don't think
>it would be
Hi Alex,
>[...]
>[ describes that he wants interleave the definitions of several functions ]
>[ but Haskell does not allow this ]
>[...]
>This restriction is very frustrating because I want to add names to a
>function lookup table as they are derived. Is there a strong reason for
>disallowing t
In using Derive to generate Haskell code, I have run into two Gotcha's
that I am not sure need to be there:
1. "multiply defined"
I get this error message if I attempt to do
> sqlType "Int" = "Integer"
> h=2 -- removing this line makes this code work
> sqlType "String" = "VarChar(255)"
This rest
10 matches
Mail list logo
