> This is a rather belated summary of the replies to my earlier query
> about the library of parsing combinators which comes with the hbc
> compiler.
OK, I'll try again. My last reply bounced. The parsing library you
have got was just an experiment. It should never have been released.
A much
Van Snyder (= [EMAIL PROTECTED]) asks why the following definition
doesn't work:
| q :: (Integral d) => Array d (Array d d)
| q = array (1,2) [1 := array (1,3) [j := j | j <- [1..3]]] ++
| [2 := q!1]
The reason is that it is missing some parentheses. Using the rule
that func
In the following little program, why does the definition of p, and the second
definition of q, work, but the first does not? Do I not understand Haskell,
or is this a feature of ghc?
Van Snyder = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mod
This is a rather belated summary of the replies to my earlier query
about the library of parsing combinators which comes with the hbc
compiler. It is based largely on advice from Alastair Reid, Stephen J
Bevan and Ken Sailor; thanks to all of them for helping me out.
(Incidentally, if anyone who
Joe Fasel, John Peterson and I met recently to discuss the next step in
the evolution of Haskell.
While there are some big issues up ahead, (adding Gofer-like constructor
classes, for example), these should be considered for the next major
revision, Haskell 2.0.
For now, we want to be less amb
