David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bah, simple libraries. They don't have to be part of the Standard
Prelude.
I completely agree. I'd rather decrease the number of libraries defined in
the language itself and decouple library standardization from the
definition of the language
On 15/10/05, Ketil Malde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bah, simple libraries. They don't have to be part of the Standard
Prelude.
I completely agree. I'd rather decrease the number of libraries defined in
the language itself and decouple library
Ketil Malde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bah, simple libraries. They don't have to be part of the Standard
Prelude.
I completely agree. I'd rather decrease the number of libraries defined in
the language itself and decouple library
Hello Stephane,
Thursday, October 13, 2005, 11:24:30 AM, you wrote:
SB As someone who is not an academic researcher and not a student in CS,
SB I would like to express a personal opinion; we don't need a new
SB standard. To me, Haskell needs more libraries, more users (which means
SB more
Em Qui, 2005-10-13 às 09:47 +0100, Bayley, Alistair escreveu:
-
*
Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this message, and any
attachments, may contain confidential and/or
From: Marco Tulio Gontijo e Silva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Em Qui, 2005-10-13 às 09:47 +0100, Bayley, Alistair escreveu:
*
Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this message blah blah
blah
Is this kind of notice
Am Donnerstag, 13. Oktober 2005 13:39 schrieb Stephane Bortzmeyer:
[...]
Regexps and XML are, IMHO, also must haves.
By the way, it should be possible to handle regular expressions in an
Haskell-like way. I always couldn't understand why one has to write regular
expressions as strings which
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:20:24PM +0200,
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
By the way, it should be possible to handle regular expressions in
an Haskell-like way.
If you like so, but as one more
Regexps and XML are, IMHO, also must haves.
By the way, it should be possible to handle regular expressions in an
Haskell-like way.
Harp? :-)
http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~d00nibro/harp
/Niklas
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 07:15:11PM +, Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2005-10-13, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 11:29:57AM +,
Robin Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
... and, in the case of the Standard Prelude
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:34:33PM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
On 2005-10-14 at 16:25+0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:20:24PM +0200,
Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
By the way, it should be possible to handle
As someone who is not an academic researcher and not a student in CS,
I would like to express a personal opinion; we don't need a new
standard.
Maybe you just don't realise how much we do need a new standard!
standard. To me, Haskell needs more libraries, more users (which
means more
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As someone who is not an academic researcher and not a student in CS,
I would like to express a personal opinion; we don't need a new
standard. To me, Haskell needs more libraries, more users (which means
more debugging and more
Well, what we already have is a lot of language extensions with
varying degrees of support across implementations. GHC is somewhat of
a standard in and of itself, and one thing that standardisation
efforts bring is a record of what exactly GHC is doing, thus allowing
for more and better
14 matches
Mail list logo
