Thanks for the advice.
Well, if I wanted to use a language with rich mathematical symbol
support, I would use Sun's Fortress, which allows any unicode character.
But that language is scheduled to be released by 2010, if it gets
released. An interpreter is available though.
But I'll stick to
APL is fairly obsolete now anyway. A more modern version of that language is J (www.jsoftware.com),
which does not use special characters. I've studied the language a bit, and it's quite interesting,
but it really doesn't offer much (anything?) over Haskell except a much terser notation and sim
Nice. Thanks for the info, but the symbolic notation is not the only
reason for using Haskell, it's also to force them into solving simple
problems without using mutable variables, so they see this alternative
functional programming approach BEFORE they are specialist in C++,
because then they
Incidentally, GHC does allow postfix unary operators.
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html#postfix-operators
Simon
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haske
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
The more syntactic constructs exist, the more complicated it becomes to
read such programs. Today, if you read a symbolic operator which is not
"-", not a single dot with a capital identifier to the left
(qualification),
Henning Thielemann wrote:
The more syntactic constructs exist, the more complicated it becomes
to read such programs. Today, if you read a symbolic operator which is
not "-", not a single dot with a capital identifier to the left
(qualification), not a double dot in a bracket (enumeration) and
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
Why? What is your application? In fact, alphanumeric identifiers are used
as unary operators.
Why? Well, why are binary operators allowed and unary operators not? Isn't
that some kind of discrimination? In math, many many operators are unary.
Haske
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Incidentally, the nhc98 compiler has always permitted the definition of
unary operators, as an extension to the language. (It was just more
convenient to create a general mechanism for unary/prefix operators,
than to code the special case for negative numbers.)
Cool! I fou
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Sep 9, 2007, at 9:09 , Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
I think that the benefits of prefix or postfix symbolic operators
were not worth dispensing with the comfortable section syntax.
Well, that's personal I guess, but I would prefer the syntax (? /
100) and (100 /
On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 15:09 +0200, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
> > Why? What is your application? In fact, alphanumeric identifiers are
> > used as unary operators.
> Why? Well, why are binary operators allowed and unary operators not?
> Isn't that some kind of discrimination? In math, many many ope
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
>
> > I find it unfortunate that one can't (I guess) define custom unary
> > operators in Haskell.
Incidentally, the nhc98 compiler has always permitted the definition of
unary operators, as an extension to the language. (It was just more
convenient
On Sep 9, 2007, at 9:09 , Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
I think that the benefits of prefix or postfix symbolic operators
were not worth dispensing with the comfortable section syntax.
Well, that's personal I guess, but I would prefer the syntax (? /
100) and (100 / ?), which is just a single extr
Why? What is your application? In fact, alphanumeric identifiers are
used as unary operators.
Why? Well, why are binary operators allowed and unary operators not?
Isn't that some kind of discrimination? In math, many many operators are
unary. Haskell allows creating binary operators. So I woul
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
I find it unfortunate that one can't (I guess) define custom unary operators
in Haskell.
Why? What is your application? In fact, alphanumeric identifiers are used
as unary operators.
Is this correct? If so, is this just because eg (* 100) decla
I find it unfortunate that one can't (I guess) define custom unary
operators in Haskell.
Is this correct? If so, is this just because eg (* 100) declares a
function that partially applies the * operator, so this syntax disallows
unary operators? Could this be fixed by introducing a different
15 matches
Mail list logo
