Call for Papers
Workshop on Virtual Machines and Language Implementations (VMIL’23)
Co-located with SPLASH 2023
October 22-27, 2023, Cascais, Portugal
https://2023.splashcon.org/home/vmil-2023
---
PERFORMANCE CALL
The ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Functional Art, Music, Modeling, and Design (FARM)
at the International Conference on Functional Programing (ICFP) is seeking
audio/visual works that utilize functional
CALL FOR PAPERS
19th International Workshop on OCL and Textual Modeling
Co-located with
MODELS 2019 ACM/IEEE 22nd International Conference on Model
Driven Engineering Languages and System,
September 15-20,
Of course, Haskell submissions are very welcome at the FARM!
5th ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Functional Art, Music, Modelling
and Design
Oxford, UK, September, 9th 2017
Call for Papers and Performances
Key Dates:
Paper submission deadline June 1, 2017
Performance
5th ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Functional Art, Music, Modelling and
Design
Oxford, UK, September, 9th 2017
Key Dates:
Submission deadline June 1, 2017
Author Notification July 1, 2017
Camera ReadyJuly 13, 2017
Call for Papers and Demos:
Hello everyone,
some of the people here on the list asked whether there will be
recordings of the workshop.
Now I can announce that we were able to record the whole event and
talks are accesible here:
http://staff.computing.dundee.ac.uk/frantisekfarka/tiap/
Also, all the speakers were kind
Hello everyone,
as the 12th of May is getting closer I would like to invite you
yet again for the Workshop on Type Inference and Automated Proving
at University of Dundee.
Please send me an email if you wish to attend as described bellow.
It helps us with organization.
For those who have not
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:13:19 +0700
Kim-Ee Yeoh k...@atamo.com wrote:
Hi Kim-Ee,
I am afraid we currently do not plan to record the talks. But if
anything changes anf there will be any recordings I will send an email
to let the people in this mailing list know.
Best,
Franta
Hi František,
*
WORKSHOP ON TYPE INFERENCE AND AUTOMATED PROVING
Tuesday the 12th of May, 12PM to 6PM
School Of Computing,
University of Dundee
http://staff.computing.dundee.ac.uk/frantisekfarka/tiap/
13th International Workshop on Termination (WST)
Centro Residenziale Universitario di Bertinoro (near Bologna, Italy)
http://www.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/WST2013/
submission: July 22, 2013
notification: July 25, 2013
final version: August 10, 2013
workshop: August 29 - 31, 2013
The
) and a talk by Kevin Hammond (University of
St. Andrews, Scotland; talk in English).
More information on the website (with program and registration form):
http://portal.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/events/hal6-haskell-workshop
Best,
Janis.
--
Jun.-Prof. Dr. Janis Voigtländer
http://www.iai.uni-bonn.de/~jv/
mailto:j
Dear all,
the 6th Haskell in Leipzig workshop, on October 7,
will present an absolutely thrilling mixture of tutorials and talks,
with special emphasis on parallel programming.
for details and registration,
http://portal.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/events/hal6-haskell-workshop
See you - Johannes
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:11:45 + (UTC)
From: Johannes Waldmann waldm...@imn.htwk-leipzig.de
Subject: [Haskell-cafe] CfP: Haskell Workshop in Leipzig, Germany, October 7
Call for submissions
for our local Haskell Workshop in Leipzig, Germany
Call for submissions
for our local Haskell Workshop in Leipzig, Germany.
Tutorials, talks, demonstrations ... everything welcome.
Workshop language is German (mainly), and English (by request).
Submission deadline: August 20, Workshop date: October 7
http://portal.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/events
The 2010 ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on ML
http://www.cs.rit.edu/~mtf/ml2010
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Sunday, September 26, 2010
co-located with ICFP 2010
Call for
Dear all,
This a final reminder that the deadline for WGP submissions is in one
week! See the call for papers below:
==
CALL FOR PAPERS
WGP 2010
6th ACM
Workshop on Advances in Message Passing (AMP)
Languages, Compilers, and Run-time Support
at the SIGPLAN 2010 Conference on Programming Language Design and
Implementation
Dear all,
the Workshop on Generic Programming is only a few days away: 20th
September 2008 (http://www.regmaster.com/conf/icfp2008.html).
== Invited talk: The Generic Paradigm
== Lambert Meertens (Utrecht University)
== We have reserved 20 minutes for *lightning talks*. If you plan to
== attend
CALL FOR PAPERS
Workshop on Generic Programming 2008
Victoria, Canada, 20th September 2008
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/ralf.hinze/wgp2008/cfp.{html,pdf,ps,txt}
The Workshop on Generic Programming is sponsored by
Just a reminder that the deadline for the Haskell Workshop is this
Friday, 15th of June!
More info:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~keller/haskellws/HaskellWorkshop.html
Cheers,
Gabriele
___
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http
My apologies if you receive multiple copies of this:
-
ACM SIGPLAN 2007 Haskell Workshop
Call for Papers
Freiburg, Germany
Dear Haskellers,
In celebration of the 10th Haskell Workshop, that took place in
Portland, Oregon, on the 17th September 2006, the proceedings
of the very first Haskell workshop, in La Jolla 1995, have
now been made available off the Haskell Workshop home page:
www.haskell.org/haskell
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Monday, August 14, 2006, 10:34:22 AM, Andres Loeh wrote:
14:30 Simon Marlow (Microsoft Research)
An Extensible Dynamically-Typed Hierarchy of Exceptions
is this planned to be included in ghc 6.6? 6.8?
Sadly I didn't get around to it. There's a proposal on
Monday, August 14, 2006, 10:34:22 AM, Andres Loeh wrote:
14:30 Simon Marlow (Microsoft Research)
An Extensible Dynamically-Typed Hierarchy of Exceptions
is this planned to be included in ghc 6.6? 6.8?
15:00 David Himmelstrup (Denmark)
Demo: Interactive Debugging with
Please note that the early registration deadline is August 18, 2006.
Cheers,
Andres
---
ACM SIGPLAN 2006 Haskell Workshop
Call for Participation
[apologies for mutliple copies]
---
Deadline extension for the WLPE'06 workshop.
New deadline is in two weeks: May 28 !
---
WLPE' 06 - DEADLINE EXTENSION
Apologies for multiple copies; feel free to distribute further.
Cheers,
Andres
ACM SIGPLAN 2006 Haskell Workshop
Call for Papers
Portland, Oregon
17 September, 2006
The Haskell
Apologies for multiple copies; feel free to distribute further.
Cheers,
Andres
ACM SIGPLAN 2006 Haskell Workshop
Call for Papers
Portland, Oregon
17 September, 2006
The Haskell
At the Haskell workshop in Tallinn in September it was decided to set
up a Haskell Workshop Steering Committee.
The main purpose of the Haskell Workshop Steering Committee is to
provide continuity of the workshop and to offer help and advice to
the current organizer(s) of the workshop
De: John Meacham
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:53:01PM +0200, Nils Anders Danielsson wrote:
Most authors do put their papers on their web pages nowadays.
On a side note, it is a little strange that the research community
does the research, writes and typesets the papers, and does most
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:53:01PM +0200, Nils Anders Danielsson wrote:
Most authors do put their papers on their web pages nowadays.
On a side note, it is a little strange that the research community
does the research, writes and typesets the papers, and does most (?)
of the arrangements
On 10/12/05, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I certainly think we should somehow centralize an index to papers onhaskell. I have found it extremely difficult to track down papers forauthors that have since moved out of academia or have passed on anddon't have their personal homepages with
It was a demonstration, not a paper. The half page thing is all there
is. There were however slides that went with the presentation which
you might be able to get off the author. I think its also being
released open source, so you could even put your home directory on it
:)
Neil
On 10/6/05,
On 05 October 2005 17:11, Dimitry Golubovsky wrote:
The papers presented at the Workshop are already available in the ACM
library which requires membership/subscription to read full text PDFs.
Are there any plans to make those papers available anywhere else on
the Web without subscription?
The papers presented at the Workshop are already available in the ACM
library which requires membership/subscription to read full text PDFs.
Are there any plans to make those papers available anywhere else on
the Web without subscription?
--
Dimitry Golubovsky
Anywhere on the Web
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005, Dimitry Golubovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The papers presented at the Workshop are already available in the ACM
library which requires membership/subscription to read full text PDFs.
Are there any plans to make those papers available anywhere else on
the Web without
Nils Anders Danielsson wrote:
Most authors do put their papers on their web pages nowadays.
In particular, I would like to read the paper on halfs (haskell
filesystem). Googling for halfs haskell filesystem gave nothing but
the Workshop's schedule and ACM Library TOC.
Dimitry Golubovsky
On 10/5/05, Dimitry Golubovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular, I would like to read the paper on halfs (haskell
filesystem). Googling for halfs haskell filesystem gave nothing but
the Workshop's schedule and ACM Library TOC.
The paper on the ACM web site is only half a page long. It
2005 Haskell Workshop
Tallinn, Estonia, 30 September, 2005
http://www.cs.uu.nl/~daan/hw2005
Call for participation
-- Important Dates ---
Early registration deadline : July
Final call for papers, with still two working weeks to go:
2005 Haskell Workshop
Tallinn, Estonia, 30 September, 2005
http://www.cs.uu.nl/~daan/hw2005
Final Call for papers
-- Important Dates
[I apologize for cross-postings. Please forward to interested colleagues]
2005 Haskell Workshop
Tallinn, Estonia, 30 September, 2005
http://www.cs.uu.nl/~daan/hw2005
Second Call for papers
-- Important Dates
[I apologize for cross-postings. Please forward to interested colleagues]
2005 Haskell Workshop
Tallinn, Estonia, 30 September, 2005
http://www.cs.uu.nl/~daan/hw2005
Call for papers
-- Important Dates
CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
Commercial Users of Functional Programming
(CUFP)
Sept 18, 2004
Co-located with ICFP
http://www.galois.com/cufp/
Functional languages have been under academic development
for over
Dear Colleague,
The deadline for submitting to the 2004 Haskell Workshop is getting
close. Please find the Call For Papers enclosed. The workshop is
to be held on 22 September in Snowbird, Utah, USA in association with
ICFP'04. The submission deadline is 4 June.
See http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~nhn
Please find enclosed the Call For Papers for the 2004 Haskell Workshop,
to be held on 22 September in Snowbird, Utah, USA in association with
ICFP'04.
The submission deadline is 4 June: just a little more than a month away!
See http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~nhn/HW2004/ for further details, including
Please find enclosed the Call For Papers for the 2004 Haskell Workshop,
to be held on 22 September in Snowbird, Utah, USA in association with
ICFP'04.
My apologies for multiple copies.
Best regards,
/Henrik
--
Henrik Nilsson
School of Computer Science and Information Technology
The University
{-# LANGUAGE specification #-}
where specification is one or more (if compatible) of keywords like
Haskell98 Pure Haskell 98, no extensions.
SharedExtenisons (Haskell02???) A set of agreed-upon extensions
Looks fine to me. A few things to think about:
- Some of the keywords specify an entire language (eg. Haskell98),
whereas some are language modifiers (eg. FFI). We might want
to make a distinction. Currently GHC supports only Haskell98 +
modifiers.
Yes.
- Are extensions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- There are features you might want to *disable*. eg.
GHC lets you turn off the monomorphism restriction.
NoMonomorphismRestriction?
Perhaps something like this:
{-# LANGUAGE Haskell98 +FFI -MonomorphismRestriction #-}
Nice!
I feel pragmas embedded in
On 11/09/2003, at 9:46 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
I know that some of these problems can be addressed, at least in
part, by careful use of Makefiles, {-# custom pragmas #-}, and perhaps
by committing to a single tool solution. But I'd like to propose
a new approach that eliminates some of the
Dear Haskellers,
Mark Jones writes:
As a solution to that problem, the many-command-line-options
scheme described seems quite poor! It's far too tool specific,
not particularly scalable, and somewhat troublesome from a software
engineering perspective.
I've also been thinking about this,
| We at GHC HQ agree, and for future extensions we'll move to
| using separate options to enable them rather than lumping
| everything into -fglasgow-exts. This is starting to happen
| already: we have -farrows, -fwith, -fffi (currently implied
| by -fglasgow-exts).
|
| Of course, if we
Karl-Filip Faxen wrote:
| Yes, things are clearer and I rather like the idea.
| The only thorny issue is that the update function for
| field 'wibble' is formed from but not equal to the
| field name itself.
This could be solved by having an abstract type Field
thusly (*):
type Field r a
Karl-Filip Faxen wrote:
| Yes, things are clearer and I rather like the idea.
| The only thorny issue is that the update function for
| field 'wibble' is formed from but not equal to the
| field name itself.
This could be solved by having an abstract type Field
thusly (*):
[snip]
Mark Jones writes:
As a solution to that problem, the many-command-line-options
scheme described seems quite poor! It's far too tool specific,
not particularly scalable, and somewhat troublesome from a software
engineering perspective. We're not talking about a choice between
two points
Mark P Jones writes an interesting suggestion:
...
Hmm, ok, but perhaps you're worrying now about having to enumerate
a verbose list of language features at the top of each module you
write. Isn't that going to detract from readability? This is where
the module system wins big! Just
hello,
it's a pity i don't know how to get my mailer to reply to a few messages
at once :-)
i also like mark's idea. i know that ghc can alredy achive some of that
with the OPTION pragmas, but i think it is nice if we can reuse what is
already in the language rather than making programmers
On Wednesday 10 September 2003 04:54, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
G'day all.
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 02:52:48PM +0200, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
but this might be an issue for others, who have to maintain legacy
code.
You know a language has made it when we're talking about legacy code.
On
Iavor Diatchki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adrian Hey wrote:
IMHO preserving the status quo wrt records should be low priority.
It really doesn't bother me much if new (useful) language features break
existing code. I think this is a better option than permanently
impoverishing the language
What about ad-hoc overloading (allowing visible entities to share names,
as long as they can be distinugished by their typing).
This is orthogonal to the proper records issue (?)
but it might improve the current situtation (?)
and it seems backward-compatible (?)
Of course this would need an
Johannes Waldmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about ad-hoc overloading (allowing visible entities to share names,
as long as they can be distinugished by their typing).
This is orthogonal to the proper records issue (?)
but it might improve the current situtation (?)
and it seems
I'd like to add a voice of dissent here.
I would much prefer it if Haskell didn't add specific extensible records
support - even if it could be done without breaking backwards compatibility.
This is because I believe that extensible records encourage poor style. They
encourage people to
Hi!
So in summary, here is my proposal:
No specific extensible records system.
Define record update to be a function just like record selection is.
Allow these functions to be in type classes.
I do not understand the second and third point: As I understand your
idea, record selectors
Hi!
So in summary, here is my proposal:
No specific extensible records system.
Define record update to be a function just like record selection is.
Allow these functions to be in type classes.
I do not understand the second and third point: As I understand your
idea, record
Yes, things are clearer and I rather like the idea. The only
thorny issue is that the update function for field 'wibble'
is formed from but not equal to the field name itself.
In short, the magic thing would be in the 'deriving' clause:
If the data type declares fields with names x_1, ..., x_n
Yes, things are clearer and I rather like the idea. The only
thorny issue is that the update function for field 'wibble'
is formed from but not equal to the field name itself.
In short, the magic thing would be in the 'deriving' clause:
If the data type declares fields with names x_1,
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:26:04 +0100, Robert Ennals
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
class Wibble a where
wibble :: a - Int
wobble :: a - String
set_wibble :: Int - a - a
set_wobble :: String - a - a
data Foo = Foo {wibble :: Int, wobble :: String}
deriving Wibble
The Wibble
Robert Ennals [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Heavy snippage, hopefully preserving semantics]
data Foo = Foo {wibble :: Int, wobble :: String}
deriving Wibble
We could imagine the definition of Foo being automatically desugared to the
following:
data Foo = Foo Int String
instance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ketil Z. Malde) writes:
Robert Ennals [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, isn't this more or less exactly what Simon suggested (at the very
top of this thread)?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 02:27:33PM +0200, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
Shouldn't that rather be:
class HasWibble a where
wibble :: a - Int
set_wibble :: a - Int - a
class HasWobble a where ...
Or even:
class HasWibble a b | a - b where
wibble :: a - b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ketil Z. Malde) writes:
Robert Ennals [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, isn't this more or less exactly what Simon suggested (at the very
top of this thread)?
Not really, no.
I assume you mean the system suggested by Peter Thieman, outlined in the
initial email by
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 02:27:33PM +0200, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
Shouldn't that rather be:
class HasWibble a where
wibble :: a - Int
set_wibble :: a - Int - a
class HasWobble a where ...
Or even:
class HasWibble a b | a - b where
wibble ::
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, if we change the language that is implied by -fglasgow-exts now,
we risk breaking old code :-) Would folk prefer existing syntax extensions
be moved into their own flags, or left in -fglasgow-exts for now? I'm
thinking of:
- implicit
I agree with Malcolm, with the possible addition of:
keep -fglasgow-exts as it is (or, even, perhaps continue making it the
add all extensions keyword). also have -fffi, -farrows, -fth, etc.
but also have, -fnoth and -fnoffi. that way, if a lot of us have code
that uses all the extensions
On Wednesday 10 September 2003 07:22 am, Hal Daume III wrote:
I agree with Malcolm, with the possible addition of:
keep -fglasgow-exts as it is (or, even, perhaps continue making it the
add all extensions keyword). also have -fffi, -farrows, -fth, etc.
but also have, -fnoth and -fnoffi.
On Wednesday 10 September 2003 10:51, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
And now, let's just screw any backwards compatibility, and re-engineer
the records system¹.
I don't need any of this, and it makes my life harder. Are you guys
going to keep at it, until I regret ever using Haskell?
I can't speak
At 13:13 10/09/03 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Of course, if we change the language that is implied by -fglasgow-exts
now, we risk breaking old code :-) Would folk prefer existing syntax
extensions be moved into their own flags, or left in -fglasgow-exts for
now? I'm thinking of:
- implicit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Graham Klyne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- implicit parameters
- template haskell
- FFI
- rank-N polymorphism (forall keyword)
- recursive 'do' (mdo keyword)
...
Where do multi-parameter classes fit in?
I think some of the type extensions such as
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Adrian Hey wrote:
I rarely use named fields in my Haskell progs with Haskell as it is ...
but you sure agree records are useful for collecting heterogenous data?
for example, see data DynFlags here:
Hello,
I may be wrong but can't we keep old records and add new ones (as
proposed in the First Class Modules paper)
with a different syntax?
Ussual records and extensible records are both usefull, in different
cases.
Best regards,
Nicolas Oury
Le mardi, 9 sep 2003, à 14:52 Europe/Paris,
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 13:52, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Adrian Hey wrote:
I rarely use named fields in my Haskell progs with Haskell as it is ...
but you sure agree records are useful for collecting heterogenous data?
Yes, I would agree that even the current
hello,
i think records are very useful, and we don't use them much in haskell,
becuase the current record system is not very good.
Adrian Hey wrote:
IMHO preserving the status quo wrt records should be low priority.
It really doesn't bother me much if new (useful) language features break
Coming from the ML world, I can say that I find the lack of
proper records a real loss. It is extremely convenient to
write functions which take many parameters as taking a record,
for then you don't have to worry so much about the order
of arguments. SML gets this much right, but the ad hoc
Hi.
Here's another opinion for the Records! Records! chorus:
- The record and module system is one of the two big things I'd like
to see changed in Haskell. (OT: the other is subtyping.)
- It shouldn't happen before Haskell 2, because of backward
compatability. (The dot operator
G'day all.
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 02:52:48PM +0200, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
but this might be an issue for others, who have to maintain legacy code.
You know a language has made it when we're talking about legacy code.
On the other hand, you have to worry about a pure declarative language
Dear Haskellers,
This year's Haskell Workshop, held in Uppsala as a part of PLI, traditionally
concluded with a discussion on the future of Haskell. This time an attempt
was made to structure the discussion a little bit by focusing on two specific
topics, and by having each topic being introduced
ACM SIGPLAN 2003 Haskell Workshop
Uppsala, Sweden, End of August 2003
pending approval
http://www.functional-programming.org/HaskellWorkshop/cfp03.html
Call For Papers
The Haskell Workshop forms part of the PLI 2003
This is a brief account of the discussion on the future of
Haskell at the Haskell workshop, Oct 3, 2002, in Pittsburgh.
After Simon Peyton Jones discussed the copy-right issue of
publishing the report, we had a brief discussion about the
future of Haskell.
The first point raised
The detailed programme for the 2002 Haskell Workshop is
available at
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/hw2002/
It turns out that we still have one free slot for a 10min
talk. Please email me if you are interested. First come,
first served.
See you soon in Pittsburgh!
Manuel
[My apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message]
ACM SIGPLAN
2002 Haskell Workshop
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
3rd October 2002
(as part of PLI'02
SIGPLAN
2002 Haskell Workshop
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
3rd October 2002
(as part of PLI'02)
===
The purpose of the Haskell Workshop is to discuss experience
with Haskell
2002 Haskell Workshop
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
3rd October 2002
(as part of PLI'02)
===
The purpose of the Haskell Workshop is to discuss experience
with Haskell, and possible
[My apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message]
---
C A L L F O R P A P E R S
---
ACM SIGPLAN
2002 Haskell Workshop
[My apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message]
--
PROVISIONAL CALL FOR PAPERS
(Approval for PLI'02 pending)
--
2002 Haskell Workshop
On 15-Sep-2001, Mark Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14 Sep 2001, Mike Gunter wrote:
The problem is not a loss of referential transparency but the
requirement that evaluation order must be specified. E.g.
what should
raise left + raise right
return?
(snip)
Ah!
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Parsec [uses some variant of the error monad] and similar things. It
tries to generate reasonable messages of the form expecting foo,
found bar or unexpected bar annotated with source position,
making use of labels of higher level syntactic
Sat, 15 Sep 2001 15:44:52 -0500, Duncan Coutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
I've been using a few variants: single error, multiple error and multiple
error/warning types. I'm also particularly pleased with one that has an
extra combinator which allows seperate 'branches' of an expression to
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote (on 16-09-01 09:30 +):
Getting right descriptions of what was expected or unexpected is not
trivial. For example when there is no separate lexer, we rarely have
anything besides raw characters as unexpected. We have something
more descriptive only if the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 16 September 2001 04:30 pm, Frank Atanassow wrote:
A bit off-topic, but after some experience using combinator parsers in
Haskell (not just Parsec) where the lexical and syntactical bits were done
in the same grammar, I concluded that
Mike - I hope you don't mind passing this to the list - but it's a great,
simple explanation of a big problem with my approach.
On 14 Sep 2001, Mike Gunter wrote:
The problem is not a loss of referential transparency but the
requirement that evaluation order must be specified. E.g.
what
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
