==
FM 2019 - 23rd International Symposium on Formal Methods - 3rd World Congress
on Formal Methods
Porto, Portugal, October 7-11, 2019
http://formalmethods2019.inesctec.pt/
***
The 2nd International Conference on Emerging Data and Industry 4.0 (EDI40)
Leuven, Belgium
April 29 - May 2, 2019
***
Conference Website:
Call for Papers
The 10th International Conference on Ambient Systems, Networks and Technologies
(ANT)
Leuven, Belgium
April 29 - May 2, 2019
Conference Website: http://cs-conferences.acadiau.ca/ant-19/
Workshops: http://cs-conferences.acadiau.ca/ant-19/#workshop
Tutorials:
I think the difficulty has always been in finding enough people who are
* Well-informed and well-qualified
* Willing to spend the time to standardise language features
GHC does not help the situation: it's a de-facto standard, which reduces the
incentives to spend time in standardisation.
I
On 2018-10-05 09:10 AM, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
Hi,
On 10/05/2018 01:20 PM, Mario Blažević wrote:
I hereby propose we formally disband the present Haskell 2020
committee. Our performance has been so dismal
It has.
And I should apologise in particular: I've just had far less time than
I
Hi everyone,
IIRC one of the arguments against having many separate classes is that a
class is not a just set of methods, it's also the relations between them,
such as the important laws between `return` and `>>=`. And then for example
a class with just `return` doesn't give any information what
Hi Anthony,
We first go the slavish route, to provide a basis for changing things later.
So I am not looking for alternative ways of doing this, I am just wondering
whether there is a rationale for doing things this way.
The document does not give one.
And now I hear that records suffer from
On 2018-10-04 09:41 PM, Anthony Clayden wrote:
> There was no Haskell 2020 meeting this year at ICFP. Sadly, interest
seems to have waned here...
Yes that is sad. So either Haskell 2020 won't happen, or it'll be only
minor tweaks over H2010, as that was over H98.
The former seems much more
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 9:00 PM, Jurriaan Hage wrote:
>
> We first go the slavish route, to provide a basis for changing things
> later.
>
> So I am not looking for alternative ways of doing this, I am just
> wondering whether there is a rationale for doing things this way.
> The document does not
Hi,
On 10/05/2018 01:20 PM, Mario Blažević wrote:
I hereby propose we formally disband the present Haskell 2020
committee. Our performance has been so dismal
It has.
And I should apologise in particular: I've just had far less time than
I thought over the past year for a variety of
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 at 9:47 AM, Petr Pudlák wrote:
>
> IIRC one of the arguments against having many separate classes is that a
> class is not a just set of methods, it's also the relations between them,
>
Hi Petr, I was talking about splitting out Haskell's current class
hierarchy as a step
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 9:00 PM, Jurriaan Hage wrote:
>
> We first go the slavish route, to provide a basis for changing things
> later.
Ah. That comment seemed strange, but I've just read up on Helium: you're
aiming to provide a beginners' environment for Haskell.
Then without type classes,
You're implicitly arguing that no language should have support for
declaring informal intentions. That's rather more controversial than you
might think and it's worth separating out as a subject.
The fact you cheerfully talk about making return and bind inherently
related via superclass
13 matches
Mail list logo
