Mark Carroll wrote
Do any of the decent Haskell compilers allow you to just type function
definitions at an interpreter prompt and use them in subsequent
interactions, as you'd expect from a Lisp environment?
I don't know whether you consider hbi (the interactive version of hbc)
a decent
matt heilige wrote:
this brings up another issue that has, up to this point, not
been mentioned... the well-understood (and theoretically guaranteed)
properties of functional languages allow compilers/interpreters to do some
much smarter things with functional constructs... this allows very
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Frank Atanassow wrote:
also safety, and theorems for free. Then there are other properties
which
are obvious (to a programmer) in a Haskell program which get buried in
the
equivalent C(++) program, e.g., that every member of a data structure is
traversed in a fold (no
D. Tweed wrote:
Yes, I guess it's time for a confession: I'm making a rather sweeping
assumption that the patterns in which I do and don't program are in some
way `average' or `typical', even though they probably aren't. For
instance, I don't even use patterns like `a[b++]=c;' just because it
