Thomas Hallgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the syntax for labeled fields (records) the symbol - is chosen
as the operator used to associate a label with a value in
constructions and patterns:
[...]
According to a committee member, there were no convincing reasons
why - was chosen. Other
It looks ugly, but we could say that a data declaration does not
have to have any constructors:
data Empty =
-- Lennart
I agree that the best way to fix this is to have a form of data
declaration with no constructors, but I'm not keen on the syntax you
propose. How about if
Suggestion: Include among the basic types of Haskell a type `Empty'
that contains no value except bottom.
Absolutely! But I don't think it should be built in
(unless absolutely necessary).
It looks ugly, but we could say that a data declaration does not
have to have any constructors:
Philip Wadler writes:
It looks ugly, but we could say that a data declaration does not
have to have any constructors:
data Empty =
-- Lennart
I agree that the best way to fix this is to have a form of data
declaration with no constructors, but I'm not keen on
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
It looks ugly, but we could say that a data declaration does not
have to have any constructors:
data Empty =
Philip Wadler responded:
I'm not keen on the syntax you propose. How about if we allow the
rhs of a data declaration to be just `empty', where
After browsing through the Standard Library Proposal for Haskell 1.3 (Version 3
from September 6, 1995), I have the following questions:
1) The proposal for collections (sec. 4.2) mentions four different
_libraries_ which all define identical functions. IMHO, this should
better
Suggestion:
add another form of statement for monad expressions:
stmts - ...
if exp
which is defined for MonadZero as follows:
do {if exp ; stmts} = if exp then do {stmts}
else zero
Based on this, one can define list comprehensions by
