David House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or perhaps (?:) or something like that,
This has come up a few times on #haskell, and the consensus is that a
tertiary (?:) operator isn't possible because of the deep specialness
of (:). However, you can simulate it pretty well:
infixr 1 ?
(?) ::
I would be happy to write up a trac-ticket for this - I could even try
to implement it in GHC. However, I'm surprised that you agree with it
so easily since it breaks some Haskell 98-ish stuff in un-nice ways.
:-)
First of all, programs that import names from the Prelude explicitly
would no
On Jul 27, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Niklas Broberg wrote:
I would really like to see this implemented, and I don't think the
above is serious enough that we shouldn't. There may be some that
don't agree though. Speak up now, or forever hold your peace!
Given the ever increasing complexity of
On 7/27/06, Doaitse Swierstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the ever increasing complexity of Haskell as understood by the
GHC, I think very
few people are looking forward to see further complications that do
not really add much.
We alreday are at a stage where first year students trying to
| We alreday are at a stage where first year students trying to master
| haskell get error messages like
|
| Bool is not an instance of the class Num
|
| if they accidently write 1 + True (or something equivalent, but less
| obvious).
|
| If you want to mess around why not call the function
I'm all for making Haskell easy for beginners, but as Simon points out,
this change shouldn't really affect them. Since I'm also a fan of using
Haskell as the host for embedded DSL's, I think this would be a good
addition, since it provides more flexibility with the syntax.
-Paul
Simon
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 02:57:20PM +0200, Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
On Jul 27, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Niklas Broberg wrote:
I would really like to see this implemented, and I don't think the
above is serious enough that we shouldn't. There may be some that
don't agree though. Speak up now, or
(Apologies to Niklas for multiple copies, it was a Reply/Reply to all mixup.)
On 27/07/06, Niklas Broberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all, programs that import names from the Prelude explicitly
would no longer be able to use if-then-else unless they also added
'cond' to that input list
On 27/07/06, David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or perhaps (?:) or something like that, which could be used infix to
evoke the idea of C's e1 ? e2 : e3 syntax. provided to me is less
clear than cond since it has other meanings, and isn't borrowed from
any language that I'm familiar with,
On 7/27/06, David House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about we drop the idea of an auxilary cond function, and instead
just use a Boolean typeclass?
class Boolean b where
isTrue :: b - Bool
isFalse :: b - Bool
Then the semantics of if-then-else would change to something like this:
if b then
David House wrote:
How about we drop the idea of an auxilary cond function, and instead
just use a Boolean typeclass?
class Boolean b where
isTrue :: b - Bool
isFalse :: b - Bool
I don't think this covers embedded languages. If everything lives in
some monad it might be useful to rebind the
11 matches
Mail list logo
