Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:34:59 -, Chris Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
One thing I dont like, is going through IO, although I guess this
wouldnt matter so much.
*Of course* it has to be in IO! Loading an external function has
everything to do with I/O.
When you write
fooBar x =
I posted this to comp.lang.functional a while ago but (apparently) no one
had an opinion which
I cant believe is the case :-)
Chris
I would be interested to know people's views on adding reflection to Haskell
to get Factory-like behaviour.
I was thinking that other modules could "export"
read "
+ suffix +" files does not exist")
Just f - f filename
-Original Message-
From: Peter Hancock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 January 2000 11:13
To: Chris Angus
Subject: Relection
"Chris" == Chris Angus
Chris Angus wrote:
| and values could be requested from it a la...
|
| lookup :: a - Name - Maybe a
|
| Where the initial "a" is needed to make it all typesafe
I don't understand why this extra argument is needed.
| Reflect.lookup (bot::String - IO Image) (makeFnName name)
If it is
Hello everybody,
The concept of reflection can also be taken further than Chris' idea, which
is fairly useful in it's own right, but could possibly be achieved by some
smart FFI-wizard (not sure, this idea just popped into my head).
What I'm getting at is some kind of way to get your hands on
Chris Angus wrote:
Put simply
What do people think about being able to access functions from other modules
without
importing the module.
i.e. Rather than
---Start-
import Foo
-- call f
callFoof x = f x
--End
We can do
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:12:32 +0100, jwit [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
What I'm getting at is some kind of way to get your
hands on an abstract syntax representation of a Haskell
expression/datatype/module, modifying it, re-typechecking it,
and then transforming it back into a Haskell value.
In
On 25-Jan-2000, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:12:32 +0100, jwit [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
What I'm getting at is some kind of way to get your
hands on an abstract syntax representation of a Haskell
expression/datatype/module, modifying it,
This discussion feels like deja-vu all over again!
What is wrong with the various generic programming extensions that have
already been discussed? Derive, PolyP and their progeny?
-Alex-
___
S. Alexander Jacobson
On 25-Jan-2000, S. Alexander Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This discussion feels like deja-vu all over again!
What is wrong with the various generic programming extensions that have
already been discussed? Derive, PolyP and their progeny?
I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong
10 matches
Mail list logo
