6 Jun 2000 18:54:36 GMT, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
As I said: drop the "let" keyword inside "do", so it won't suggest
polymorphism.
Would it be possible to have polymorphism only in bindings with
explicit type signature?
Oops, explitit type signatures don't fit to
Thanks for everyone who participated in the recent poll. Here
are the results:
Never used: 6
Sometimes used: 1
Common commments:
willing to give it up for something cool
can be easily rewritten
wouldn't make a lot of difference
not sure if used ever, but
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:30:41AM -0700, John Launchbury wrote:
I don't think that's a very accurate description. The "let" in "do"
is a bit of a different beast from the usual "let..in" construct.
For a start, it doesn't have an "in" keyword.
But it is in the translation, of course:
Isn't that a bit of a dodgy argument? I don't know of any papers
on `in' polymorphism, but many about `let' polymorphism. If I see
`let', I expect polymorphism, and I'm not going to go searching for
an `in'.
Not true (or if true, misguided).
I say dodgy - you say misguided. OK -
Thanks for everyone who participated in the recent poll. Here are the results:
Never used: 6
Sometimes used: 1
Common commments:
willing to give it up for something cool
can be easily rewritten
wouldn't make a lot of difference
not sure if used ever, but wouldn't expect it
Levent Erkok wrote:
| In particular, the person who indicated that he has
| "sometimes used" polymorphic let-generators stated
| that he can always rewrite the code without using
| them.
That same person also said that this is the case for many
other Haskell features, such as list
On Tue, 06 Jun 2000, Koen Claessen wrote:
Now, obviously there are not that many people who use
polymorphic let-bindings in do, but I don't think that is a
reason to introduce this restriction.
I agree. We were just trying to see if such polymorphic
let-generators were used often in
Koen,
If a language has the property that in one place, one can
use a "let" block to define polymorphic bindings, and in
another place one can only use it for monomorphic bindings,
then I think that is bad language design.
I don't think that's a very accurate description. The "let" in "do"
(Apologies to the list: The previous version of this message got out a little
premature, here's the complete version of it..)
Here's the pointer:
http://www.cse.ogi.edu/PacSoft/projects/muHugs/
The paper titled "Recursive Monadic Bindings" explains the ideas. (It also
briefly talks
Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:09:41 +0200 (MET DST), Koen Claessen [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
If a language has the property that in one place, one can
use a "let" block to define polymorphic bindings, and in
another place one can only use it for monomorphic bindings,
then I think that is bad language
John Launchbury wrote:
Koen,
If a language has the property that in one place, one can
use a "let" block to define polymorphic bindings, and in
another place one can only use it for monomorphic bindings,
then I think that is bad language design.
I don't think that's a very accurate
Jeff,
Isn't that a bit of a dodgy argument? I don't know of any papers on `in'
polymorphism, but many about `let' polymorphism. If I see `let', I expect
polymorphism, and I'm not going to go searching for an `in'.
Not true (or if true, misguided). Consider the type rule for "let". The
John Launchbury wrote:
Jeff,
Isn't that a bit of a dodgy argument? I don't know of any papers on `in'
polymorphism, but many about `let' polymorphism. If I see `let', I expect
polymorphism, and I'm not going to go searching for an `in'.
Not true (or if true, misguided).
I say dodgy
13 matches
Mail list logo
