Just thought I'd report that the PolyGP link:
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/T.Yu/research.html
at the 'Haskell in Practice' section (http://www.haskell.org/practice.html)
seems to be broken.
J.A.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why does newtype exist, instead of letting people always use data and
still get maximum efficiency? After all, surely the implementation is an
implementation detail - a compiler could see the use of data with a
unary constructor and implement it as it does newtype, instead of making
the
Mark Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does newtype exist, instead of letting people always use data and
still get maximum efficiency? After all, surely the implementation is an
implementation detail - a compiler could see the use of data with a
unary constructor and implement it as it
You can't recreate newtype with data. There's a long discussion
of this in the report: check section 4.2.3
http://haskell.org/onlinereport/decls.html#sect4.2.3
John
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
05 Oct 2001 11:53:05 -0700, Carl R. Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
Data (T2 undefined) `seq` ()
*** Exception: Prelude.undefined
Data (T3 undefined) `seq` ()
*** Exception: Prelude.undefined
I can't think of a semantic difference between newtype and data
with a single unary strict
On 5 Oct 2001, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
(snip)
It could indeed be represented in the same way, but they behave
differently in pattern matching: case undefined of T _ - ()
is () in the case of newtype and undefined in the case of strict data.
Ah. I don't really use error or anything in
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 11:23:50PM +1000, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
G'day all.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 02:29:51AM -0700, Krasimir Angelov wrote:
Why Char is 32 bit. UniCode characters is 16 bit.
It's not quite as simple as that. There is a set of one million
(more correctly, 1M)
