hello,
Frank Atanassow wrote:
On vrijdag, sep 26, 2003, at 09:16 Europe/Amsterdam, John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:59:12AM +0200, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
I think there is a problem with too much overloaded syntax. Perhaps
it is time to put non-ASCII characters to good use?
For
Brandon Michael Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or was that supposed to be composition of a constructor with a function, A
. f? Function composition, and higher order functions in general are
likely to confuse an imperative programmer, but I think there isn't much
syntax can do there.
I
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:59:12AM +0200, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
Brandon Michael Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or was that supposed to be composition of a constructor with a function, A
. f? Function composition, and higher order functions in general are
likely to confuse an imperative
Hi. I'm really new to Haskell, just learning it, and I must say I'm pretty
overwhelmed by the large variety of constructs. (=, -, \ to name a few)
Would that be \ as in TREX row variable polymorphism? Just remember most
operators are just library functions. It's only =, -, =, -, :: that
Keith Wansbrough [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And I don't think - is part of the language - it only appears in the type
syntax, not term syntax. If you allow it, you have to allow * as well.
Errm, you just gave an example of - in the term syntax...
(\x - x*x) 3
Regards,
Malcolm
Keith Wansbrough [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And I don't think - is part of the language - it only appears in the type
syntax, not term syntax. If you allow it, you have to allow * as well.
Errm, you just gave an example of - in the term syntax...
(\x - x*x) 3
Guilty... sorry! :-(
On vrijdag, sep 26, 2003, at 09:16 Europe/Amsterdam, John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:59:12AM +0200, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
I think there is a problem with too much overloaded syntax. Perhaps
it is time to put non-ASCII characters to good use?
For instance, function composition could
Note I've replied to haskell-cafe. This post is a bit chatty and low on
solid answers.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Sean L. Palmer wrote:
A... should be split into A.. and .
I found a compromise: let's make it a lexing error! :-)
At least that agrees with what some Haskell compilers implement. No
