| http://www.haskell.org/hierarchical-modules/libraries/library-design.html
I have always wondered why the module system is not used at
all in these conventions. I mean, the function names seem to
come straight from the Haskell 1.2 days when there was no
module system!
What I mean is, instead
I think it's because of tradition. Originally Haskell didn't have
qualified names, only renaming. (Which, IMHO, was a wrong decision
in the original Haskell design.)
-- Lennart
Koen Claessen wrote:
| http://www.haskell.org/hierarchical-modules/libraries/library-design.html
I have always
Koen Claessen wrote:
And instead of:
mapSet, emptySet, ...
We have:
Set.map, Set.empty, ...
This is how Chris does it in Edison.
and Daan Leijen in DData: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~daan/ddata.html
Christian
(Well, Set.map is actually missing there)
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2004 10:23 schrieb Koen Claessen:
http://www.haskell.org/hierarchical-modules/libraries/library-design.html
I have always wondered why the module system is not used at all in these
conventions. I mean, the function names seem to come straight from the
Haskell 1.2 days
Excuse my ignorance, but why can't you just say:
import qualified Data.Set as Set
Hello,
the naming scheme you mention is nice, in my opinion.
Alas, it has a problem with hierarchical module names. For
example, you
cannot write Set.empty but have to write Data.Set.empty
instead.
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2004 12:51 schrieb Bayley, Alistair:
Excuse my ignorance, but why can't you just say:
import qualified Data.Set as Set
You can do so. I knew itI'd have missed something. ;-)
[...]
Wolfgang
___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL
Koen Claessen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And instead of:
mapSet, emptySet, ...
We have:
Set.map, Set.empty, ...
This is how Chris does it in Edison.
Why isn't this used more?
One could possibly argue that the right solution is to put the
operations in classes? There has from time
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2004 10:23 schrieb Koen Claessen:
http://www.haskell.org/hierarchical-modules/libraries/library-design.html
What I mean is, instead of:
newIORef, writeIORef, readIORef
We could have:
IORef.new, IORef.write,
| One could possibly argue that the right solution is to
| put the operations in classes?
The problem is that sometimes the type of an operation on a
particular data structure is not completely according to the
general structure. There might be extra restrictions on the
type arguments for
I've completed the functionality of my proposed upgrade to Network.URI,
though there are still a couple of issues that need to be resolved with the
ongoing RFC2396bis work (none critical to the general functionality). This
is still work-in-progress, but I'm airing it now to see if folks think
Koen Claessen wrote:
[...] Why is the naming scheme standard, described at:
http://www.haskell.org/hierarchical-modules/libraries/library-design.html
still using Haskell 1.2 naming schemes? Do people simply not
like qualified names?
I think the reason is simply that SimonM copied the relevant
I just took a quick look at hmake, and it appears to be very
Unix/Linux-centred in its applicability.
In particular, the installation instructions seem to dpeend on a
'configure' utility, which I think is a Unix/Linux feature that I'm not
aware is available for Windows.
Am I missing something
Graham Klyne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just took a quick look at hmake, and it appears to be very
Unix/Linux-centred in its applicability.
Yes, in general it is. hmake's origins are lost in the mists of
time, but certainly date from the very earliest days of Haskell
(1991-1992?), when the
At 18:06 20/02/04 +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
In particular, the installation instructions seem to dpeend on a
'configure' utility, which I think is a Unix/Linux feature that I'm not
aware is available for Windows.
'configure' is a shell-script included in the distribution,
not a separate
Bugs item #900759, was opened at 2004-02-19 23:35
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by simonmar
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=108032aid=900759group_id=8032
Category: Compiler
Group: 6.2
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:31:34PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
I presume that this is a bug in setPermissions?
Yes, it's a bug. However, since
getPermissions/setPermissions doesn't
really give you enough control in Unix, I suggest you use
the functions
available from
Please bear with me.
Point of departure:
My goal is OWL (but replacing the "O" for
Ontological with Noological)
http://www.bright.net/~jclarke/kant/history.html2.
Noology (as in noumenon or "state of
mind") i.e. rational
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OntologyZoology
(as in
I am trying (and have been for quite some time) to repair a broken Haskell
script. I keep getting stuck on Last generator in do {...} must be an
expression. I am betting that this is not uncommon. Can someone please
help me understand?
code5 :: Parser
code5 = do
dd - code3
Is this better?
Please note that the entire email I first sent is 7,153 bytes and in
attachment
This one plus attachment is under 5 kb.
I am using notetab lite.
How does that rank with security i.e.
I don't want to scare people with attachments.
Note: I am not good at this sort of thing.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:21:37 -0600
Matthew Morvant wrote:
I keep getting stuck on ?Last generator in do
{...} must be an expression?.
'do' is for the beginning of a block. It's not needed
every time a Parser is mentioned. If you want code5 to
consist of 3 code3s, one after another, then
Re: my last goof up
Hi,
I know,being a totally ignorant Haskell newbie, that I should soon
get to know my pecking order.
But this e-paper shuffle is so damned annoying. i.e. "Hello
World"
In .txt mode is 11 bytes.
In NoteTab Lite .txt (with url; say "Ripose.com.au") is 28
bytes
In WordPad
21 matches
Mail list logo
