More Haskell Blue Sky: Partial Type Annotations

2002-04-11 Thread Ashley Yakeley
I sometimes come across a situation when I only want to provide a _partial_ type annotation, perhaps because the full type has some variable unified with some variable in some other type annotation, or something. For instance: f :: forall a. [a] -> [a] -> [a] f x y = g x where g [] = y

RE: More Haskell Blue Sky: Partial Type Annotations

2002-04-11 Thread Simon Peyton-Jones
Already in GHC, and describe in our paper on scoped type variables: http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/scoped-tyvar Simon | -Original Message- | From: Ashley Yakeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: 11 April 2002 12:11 | To: Haskell List | Subject: More Haskell Blue

ÐÅÏ¢¸üÐÂ!¸ü¶àÓÅ»Ý!

2002-04-11 Thread tony
Ç×°®µÄÅóÓÑ£º ÄúºÃ£¡ ÕâÊÇÀ´×ÔÈðÀ´ÍøÂç¼¼Êõ£¨ÏÃÃÅ£©ÓÐÏÞ¹«Ë¾µÄÎʺ¸ÐлÄúÊÕ¿´Õâ·âÓʼþ¡£ÎÒÃÇÕæ³ÏµÄÏ£ÍûÄúÄܳÉΪÎÒÃÇÔÚ ¹óµØÇøµÄÖØÒª»ï°é¡£ÎÒÃÇÊÇÒ»¼Ò²ÉÓÃÊÀ½ç¸ßм¼Êõ½á¾§£¬Ñо¿¡¢ÍƹãºÍ·¢Õ¹Ð¼¼Êõ£¬ÖÂÁ¦ÓÚ»¥ÁªÍøÐÅÏ¢·þÎñ¡¢ µç×ÓÉÌÎñ·þÎñºÍÆóÒµÓ¦Ó÷þÎñµÄ¸ßм¼ÊõÆóÒµ¡£ÏêÇéÇëä¯ÀÀ:http://www.raeline.net ema

Re: More Haskell Blue Sky: Partial Type Annotations

2002-04-11 Thread John Meacham
I actually have wanted a similar thing at times, the proposal I had in mind was a bit less drastic, simply allow '_' in type signatures which will unify with any arbitrary type. that way you can give any function the type f :: _ -> _ or if you just want to resstrict part of the type you could say

Confused about seq and forms.

2002-04-11 Thread Jay Cox
Somewhere (either Algorithms: AFA, some paper, or the haskell report) I read that seq evaluates its first argument to head normal form. I remember posting on this message forum or haskell-cafe that it evaluates the first argument to weak head normal form. At the time, I thought I was right, THEN

Gratitude message (lazy evaluation etc. document.)

2002-04-11 Thread Jay Cox
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Jay Cox wrote: > I still am trying to write a document about strictness and haskell > evaluation for those of us without research degrees ;-) Just to say something quick. There are a few of you that actually responded when I was going to write what I then called "A strictne

Re: Confused about seq and forms.

2002-04-11 Thread Janis Voigtlaender
Jay Cox wrote: > > ... > so it looks if seq reduced to head normal form, above would be > reduced to (\x . 2+y) seq reduces its first argument to weak head normal form, as in: f = seq (const undefined) "good" g = seq undefined "bad" Main> f "good" (93 reductions, 148 cells) Main> g " Program e

IFL 2002 Announcement

2002-04-11 Thread Ricardo Pe~na
(Apologies for multiple postings) IFL 2002 14th International Workshop on the IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGES Madrid Spain