On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Nils Anders Danielsson wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006, Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If the Prelude would be splitted into modules, where (==) and (+)
> > are separated, and no module imports the other one, then we need a
> > third module, which states the
Well let's see. First I'll assume that
prec $! = $
is how $! was specified. Thus we know both ?? < $ and $! = $. Let's
derive the relation between ?? and $!
?? < $
=> ?? < $!{$ = $!}
So I think that is pretty straight-forward. ":)" is a parse error... ;)
This does bring up the interes
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, David House wrote:
> On 07/11/06, Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I must say though, that I don't like the reasoning that we
> > can put in fractional fixities because it's a small
> > change. The way to hell is through a series of small
> > steps. If using intege
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Nicolas,
>
> Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 1:25:23 AM, you wrote:
>
> > prec ?? < $
> > over-specification). You want ?? to bind more tightly than does $;
> > that's exactly what this approach would let you specify.
>
> and how then compiler
Simon Marlow wrote:
> http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/FixityResolution
What's the fate of unary minus under that proposal?
In the Haskell report its syntax is part of the lexp^6 production.
This production makes it possible to write (-1+) instead of (subtract 1),
al
Nicolas Frisby wrote:
> Let's remember that if something is broke, it's only _right_ to _fix_
> it. I patiently waited for someone else to make that pun.
>
> Understanding the language won't be much harder, but understanding
> fixity declarations will become a task. Consider:
>
> infixl -1.7521 --
David House schrieb:
Also, it provides an infinite space for fixities. I think the problem
'binds tighter than X but not as tight as Y', where X and Y are only
fixity integer apart is somewhat common, and this would fix it. It
would allow for extensibility into the future, where the operator
spac
Hello Nicolas,
Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 1:25:23 AM, you wrote:
> prec ?? < $
> over-specification). You want ?? to bind more tightly than does $;
> that's exactly what this approach would let you specify.
and how then compiler will guess that is relational priority of this
operator compari
Let's remember that if something is broke, it's only _right_ to _fix_
it. I patiently waited for someone else to make that pun.
Understanding the language won't be much harder, but understanding
fixity declarations will become a task. Consider:
infixl -1.7521 -- what and why?
As the operator s
I don't see how it's too complex. Isn't
infixl ??
prec ?? < $
(??) = whenOperator
exactly what you want to say?
Sure you can solve the problem with negative fixities, but that's less
expressive than the above (the total order is actually an
over-specification). You want ?? to bind more tight
On 07/11/06, Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I must say though, that I don't like the reasoning that we
can put in fractional fixities because it's a small
change. The way to hell is through a series of small
steps. If using integers to express fixities is a bit of a
hack, switching to r
On 2006-11-07 at 18:30+0100 Henning Thielemann wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> > This is a much more heavyweight change, and its not a clear win.
>
> Haskell 2 ? :-)
>
> > If you'd like to make a concrete proposal, then feel free to do so and
> > I'll make sure it gets onto
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Simon Marlow wrote:
> This is a much more heavyweight change, and its not a clear win.
Haskell 2 ? :-)
> If you'd like to make a concrete proposal, then feel free to do so and
> I'll make sure it gets onto the wiki.
What about the one of Jón Fairbairn ?
http://www.haskell.
Henning Thielemann wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
>> I'd support fractional and negative fixity. It's a simple change to
>> make, but we also have to adopt
>>
>>
> http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki
> /FixityResolution
>>
>> I've added the proposal t
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Simon Marlow wrote:
> I'd support fractional and negative fixity. It's a simple change to
> make, but we also have to adopt
>
> http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/FixityResolution
>
> I've added the proposal to the end of that page. In fact, the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello Dan,
>
> Saturday, November 4, 2006, 5:07:15 AM, you wrote:
>
>> Here's an idea that (I think) is useful and backwards compatible:
>> fractional and negative fixity.
>
> yes, i think the same. for example, once i've tried to define postfix
> 'when' operator like tho
But DEC's language FOCAL had fractional line numbers. :)
On Nov 7, 2006, at 06:00 , Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Henning,
Monday, November 6, 2006, 1:27:54 PM, you wrote:
print msg `on` mode==debug
but failed because my code frequently contai
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Henning,
>
> Monday, November 6, 2006, 1:27:54 PM, you wrote:
>
> >> print msg `on` mode==debug
> >>
> >> but failed because my code frequently contains '$' and there is no way
> >> to define operation with a lower precedence
>
> > This could
Hello Henning,
Monday, November 6, 2006, 1:27:54 PM, you wrote:
>> print msg `on` mode==debug
>>
>> but failed because my code frequently contains '$' and there is no way
>> to define operation with a lower precedence
> This could be solved by the solutions proposed in this thread:
>
> http://
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 18:07 -0800, Dan Weston wrote:
> Here's an idea that (I think) is useful and backwards compatible:
> fractional and negative fixity.
>
> There have been 3 separate times where I've wanted an operator just
> above 0 ($) but less than 1 (>>= or >>>), or else just below 0 (lik
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Dan,
>
> Saturday, November 4, 2006, 5:07:15 AM, you wrote:
>
> > Here's an idea that (I think) is useful and backwards compatible:
> > fractional and negative fixity.
>
> yes, i think the same. for example, once i've tried to define postfix
Hello Dan,
Saturday, November 4, 2006, 5:07:15 AM, you wrote:
> Here's an idea that (I think) is useful and backwards compatible:
> fractional and negative fixity.
yes, i think the same. for example, once i've tried to define postfix
'when' operator like those in perl/ruby
print msg `on` mode=
Here's an idea that (I think) is useful and backwards compatible:
fractional and negative fixity.
There have been 3 separate times where I've wanted an operator just
above 0 ($) but less than 1 (>>= or >>>), or else just below 0 (like a
superlow $$)
infix 0.5 ???
infix -1 $$
The only cha
23 matches
Mail list logo
