John Meacham :
The fact that bottom is a value in Haskell is the fundamental thing that
differentiates Haskell from other languages and the source of its power. The
fact that f _|_ /= _|_ potentially _is_ what it means to be a lazy language.
Not treating
_|_ as a value would be a huge
Jerzy Karczmarczuk jerzy.karczmarc...@unicaen.fr writes:
and the source of it power - if I might cite you - is that we don't see
the difference between an object and the process which creates it.
Interestingly, according to Wikipedia's article on type system:
A type system associates a type
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
Well...
Personally I hate thinking about bottom as value. I don't do this. I
NEVER teach that. And, I am a lazy guy, almost all my Haskell programs
are strongly based on laziness.
I'll tell you what I teach, and you might throw some tomatoes...
The fundamental thing
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com wrote:
* Documentation that discourages thinking about bottom as a 'value'. It's
not a value, and that is what defines it.
The fact that bottom is a value in Haskell is the fundamental thing that
differentiates Haskell from
Le Mon, 26 Dec 2011 19:30:20 -0800,
Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com a écrit :
So we give meaning to syntax through our semantics. That is what this
whole conversation is all about. I am proposing we give Haskell
bottoms semantics that bring it in line with the bottoms from various
27.12.2011, 07:30, "Alexander Solla" alex.so...@gmail.com:And why exactly should we limit ourselves to some theory you happen to like?Because the question was about MY IDEAL. You're right. I'm confusing two different threads. My apologies.But (_|_) IS a concrete value.Um, perhaps in denotational
On 26 Dec 2011, at 16:11, AUGER Cédric wrote:
There is
http://www.stixfonts.org/
For typesetting with Xe[La]TeX or Lua[La]TeX, use XITS (in the
TeXLive package).
(And then we'll have to deal with folks trying to use the letter,
because everyone knows the Roman alphabet is the only one
On 26 Dec 2011, at 19:29, AUGER Cédric wrote:
Le Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:20:55 +0100,
Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com a écrit :
On 26 Dec 2011, at 16:11, AUGER Cédric wrote:
Under Xorg, XCompose might be your friend! I have a whole bunch of
them for Coq programing.
Having something like:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:20, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
On 26 Dec 2011, at 16:11, AUGER Cédric wrote:
But if you are under Windows, or Mac OS, I cannot tell (as well as I
cannot tell if you are under a POSIX system not running xorg, such as
the tty1..ttyn consoles)
On OS X
On 26 Dec 2011, at 23:03, Brandon Allbery wrote:
But if you are under Windows, or Mac OS, I cannot tell (as well as I
cannot tell if you are under a POSIX system not running xorg, such as
the tty1..ttyn consoles)
On OS X one can make ones owns key maps, like with the program on the link
Quoth Hans Aberg,
...
For example, I set one entry so that typing x |- a becomes x ⦠a, the
TeX \mapsto, in Unicode ⦠RIGHTWARDS ARROW FROM BAR U+21A6.
It might be tedious to make a lot of entries, though, but something to
start with.
Something to finish me with, too. I wouldn't be
On 27 Dec 2011, at 01:02, Donn Cave wrote:
Quoth Hans Aberg,
...
For example, I set one entry so that typing x |- a becomes x ↦ a, the
TeX \mapsto, in Unicode ↦ RIGHTWARDS ARROW FROM BAR U+21A6.
It might be tedious to make a lot of entries, though, but something to
start with.
2011/12/24 MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru
Отправлено с iPad
24.12.2011, в 18:50, Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com написал(а):
In the same way, denotational semantics adds features which do not apply
to a theory of finite computation.
And why exactly should we limit ourselves to some
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:39 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
On 22 Dec 2011, at 06:25, Alexander Solla wrote:
Denotational semantics is unrealistic.
And so are imaginary numbers. But they are damn useful for electrical
circuits calculations, so who cares?
Not a fair comparison.
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:39 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
On 22 Dec 2011, at 06:25, Alexander Solla wrote:
Denotational semantics is unrealistic.
And so are imaginary numbers. But they are damn
Отправлено с iPad
24.12.2011, в 18:50, Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com написал(а):
In the same way, denotational semantics adds features which do not apply to a
theory of finite computation.
And why exactly should we limit ourselves to some theory you happen to like?
The
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Chris Wong
chrisyco+haskell-c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Farkas-Dyck
strake...@gmail.com wrote:
With GHC 7.0.3:
$ cat test.hs
class ℝ a where {
test :: a;
};
(∈) :: Eq a = a - [a] - Bool;
x ∈ (y:ys) = x == y || x ∈ ys;
On 23 Dec 2011, at 02:11, Conor McBride wrote:
So... you are developing a programming language with all calculations being
automatically lifted to a monad? What if we want to do calculations with
monadic values themselves, like, for example, store a few monadic
calculations in a list
On 23 Dec 2011, at 02:11, Conor McBride wrote:
So... you are developing a programming language with all calculations being
automatically lifted to a monad? What if we want to do calculations with
monadic values themselves, like, for example, store a few monadic
calculations in a list
On 23 Dec 2011, at 16:16, MigMit wrote:
On 23 Dec 2011, at 02:11, Conor McBride wrote:
So... you are developing a programming language with all
calculations being automatically lifted to a monad? What if we
want to do calculations with monadic values themselves, like, for
example,
I'd like to make special syntax for folds, so that fold is built in
the type definition. Maybe it can be some special
braces or just fold(..). So we can write the same function in
place of foldr, maybe, either and so on and don't have to define
them by hand.
Inside special fold-braces one can
On 2011-12-23 13:46, Conor McBride wrote:
The plan is to make a clearer distinction between being and doing by
splitting types clearly into an effect part and a value part, in a sort
of a Levy-style call-by-push-value way. The notation
[list of effects]value type
is a computation type
Alexander Solla wrote:
And denotational semantics is not just nice. It is useful. It's the best
way to understand why the program we just wrote doesn't terminate.
Denotational semantics is unrealistic. It is a Platonic model of
constructive computation. Alan Turing introduced the notion of
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Robert Clausecker fuz...@gmail.com wrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff would you add to your language, what stuff
would you
2011/12/22 Gábor Lehel illiss...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Robert Clausecker fuz...@gmail.com
wrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff
Alexander Solla wrote:
I happen to only write Haskell programs that terminate. It is not that
hard. We must merely restrict ourselves to the total fragment of the
language, and there are straight-forward methods to do so.
Do (web/XML-RPC/whatever) server type programs terminate?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Heinrich Apfelmus
apfel...@quantentunnel.de wrote:
Alexander Solla wrote:
And denotational semantics is not just nice. It is useful. It's the best
way to understand why the program we just wrote doesn't terminate.
Denotational semantics is unrealistic. It
On 22 Dec 2011, at 17:49, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
Alexander Solla wrote:
I happen to only write Haskell programs that terminate. It is not
that
hard. We must merely restrict ourselves to the total fragment of the
language, and there are straight-forward methods to do so.
Do
Отправлено с iPad
22.12.2011, в 23:56, Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org написал(а):
I'd be glad if pure meant total, but
partiality were an effect supported by the run-time system. Then we
could choose to restrict ourselves, but we wouldn't be restricted by the
language.
I second
I would have compose (probably not called '.') read the same way we read
this sentence (and unix pipes) ie left to right.
You can use from Control.Arrow for that if you want.
Erik
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On 22 Dec 2011, at 21:29, MigMit wrote:
Отправлено с iPad
22.12.2011, в 23:56, Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org
написал(а):
I'd be glad if pure meant total, but
partiality were an effect supported by the run-time system. Then we
could choose to restrict ourselves, but we
On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 01:29 +0400, MigMit wrote:
Отправлено с iPad
22.12.2011, в 23:56, Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org
написал(а):
I'd be glad if pure meant total, but
partiality were an effect supported by the run-time system. Then we
could choose to restrict ourselves, but
On 21 Dec 2011, at 04:15, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 21:05, Andrew Cowie and...@operationaldynamics.com
wrote:
Now we just need λ to replace \, → to replace -, and ≠ to replace /=
(which still looks like division assignment no matter how hard I squint
my eyes. 25 years
On 21 Dec 2011, at 04:27, Ashok Gautham wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:17:32PM +0100, Hans Aberg wrote:
The monospace characters U+1D670-1D6A3 might be used for keywords. Font:
http://www.stixfonts.org/
I feel that monospace fonts should be used for all of programming. A
language could
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:51, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
The one on the list is not a mathematical symbol. It should be ⋆ STAR
OPERATOR U+22C6 or ∗ ASTERISK OPERATOR U+2217.
...except, at least in my current font, the former is microscopic and the
latter not a whole lot better. The
IIRC, Scite's default configuration is with non-monospace font. I actually
found it quite appealing, and in fact forgot about it entirely after some
usage. It is much easier on the eyes to read. The difference is really
whether you care about aligning things mid-line or not, not to mention
editor
On 21 Dec 2011, at 11:03, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:51, Hans Aberg haber...@telia.com wrote:
The one on the list is not a mathematical symbol. It should be ⋆ STAR
OPERATOR U+22C6 or ∗ ASTERISK OPERATOR U+2217.
...except, at least in my current font, the former is
On 19/12/2011 07:20 PM, Robert Clausecker wrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff would you add to your language, what stuff
would you remove and what problems
On Dec 20, 2011, at 11:18 PM, Heinrich Apfelmus wrote:
Tillmann Rendel wrote:
Hi,
Robert Clausecker wrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff would you add to
On 21/12/2011 10:09 AM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
IIRC, Scite's default configuration is with non-monospace font. I
actually found it quite appealing, and in fact forgot about it entirely
after some usage. It is much easier on the eyes to read. The difference
is really whether you care about
On 21 Dec 2011, at 11:09, Jesse Schalken wrote:
IIRC, Scite's default configuration is with non-monospace font. I actually
found it quite appealing, and in fact forgot about it entirely after some
usage. It is much easier on the eyes to read. The difference is really
whether you care about
On 21 Dec 2011, at 11:22, Andrew Coppin wrote:
On 21/12/2011 10:09 AM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
IIRC, Scite's default configuration is with non-monospace font. I
actually found it quite appealing, and in fact forgot about it entirely
after some usage. It is much easier on the eyes to read. The
In general, I like haskell the way it is, but there are a few things
that I would like to see:
(I am no language designer, so I don't know about the theoretical
implications that these
might have. Also, let me know if there exists a clean way to do any of
the following):
- Using subranges of
Am 21.12.2011 14:10 schrieb Ivan Perez ivanperezdoming...@gmail.com:
In general, I like haskell the way it is, but there are a few things
that I would like to see:
(I am no language designer, so I don't know about the theoretical
implications that these
might have. Also, let me know if there
- Function overloading without classes. If it's not done, there must
be a good reason for it
(many good reasons, probably), but I really miss it.
That does not play well with type inference.
I understand that. But it may be ok in many simple situations,
which is actually where I tend to need
Am Mittwoch, den 21.12.2011, 20:05 +0100 schrieb Ivan Perez:
- Function overloading without classes. If it's not done, there must
be a good reason for it
(many good reasons, probably), but I really miss it.
That does not play well with type inference.
I understand that. But it may be
In Haskell, most of these assumptions are invalid:
* something may be curried or member of a strange typeclass (like
printf). No assumptions about the number of arguments can be
made
* It may be possible that we do not yet know the type of a because
we can't
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:16 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
On 21 Dec 2011, at 08:24, Alexander Solla wrote:
I would rather have an incomplete semantic, and have all the incomplete
parts collapsed into something we call bottom.
I don't see the reason to limit ourselves to that.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Dec 21, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
I would rather have an incomplete semantic, and have all the incomplete
parts collapsed into something we call bottom. We can then be smart and
stay within a
I would make the 'type' symbol a single character ala Agda. For example,
a : Int
If your users are writing a lot of types, make it easy!
On Dec 22, 2011 10:42 AM, Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 22, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
It is not limiting to make distinctions that capture real differences. An
overly broad generalization limits what can be proved. Can we prove that
every vehicle with wheels has a motor? Of course not -- bicycles exist. Can
we prove
On Dec 22, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
fst _|_ = _|_
This expression is basically non-sense.
This is only nonsense because you refuse to accept that there are valid
formalisms other than your own that contain _|_ as a perfectly valid entity.
:-)
Should we accept
On 22 Dec 2011, at 06:25, Alexander Solla wrote:
Denotational semantics is unrealistic.
And so are imaginary numbers. But they are damn useful for electrical circuits
calculations, so who cares?
The /defining/ feature of a bottom is that it doesn't have an interpretation.
What do you mean
On 20/12/2011, at 6:06 PM, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
* Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com [2011-12-19 19:10:32-0800]
* Documentation that discourages thinking about bottom as a 'value'. It's
not a value, and that is what defines it.
In denotational semantics, every well-formed term in the
Hi,
Robert Clausecker wrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff would you add to your language, what stuff
would you remove and what problems would you solve
How would you represent it then?
Would it cause a compiler error?
Thiago.
2011/12/20 Ben Lippmeier b...@ouroborus.net:
On 20/12/2011, at 6:06 PM, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
* Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com [2011-12-19 19:10:32-0800]
* Documentation that discourages thinking about bottom
On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Tillmann Rendel wrote:
Hi,
Robert Clausecker wrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff would you add to your language, what
On 20/12/2011, at 9:06 PM, Thiago Negri wrote:
There isn't one!
Bottoms will be the null pointers of the 2010's, you watch.
How would you represent it then?
Types probably. In C, the badness of null pointers is that when you inspect an
int* you don't always find an int. Of course the
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Ben Lippmeier b...@ouroborus.net wrote:
On 20/12/2011, at 6:06 PM, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
* Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com [2011-12-19 19:10:32-0800]
* Documentation that discourages thinking about bottom as a 'value'.
It's
not a value, and that
Отправлено с iPhone
Dec 20, 2011, в 7:10, Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com написал(а):
* Documentation that discourages thinking about bottom as a 'value'. It's
not a value, and that is what defines it.
It's definitely a value.
___
On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Ben Lippmeier b...@ouroborus.net wrote:
On 20/12/2011, at 6:06 PM, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
In denotational semantics, every well-formed term in the language must
have a value. So, what is a value of
In denotational semantics, every well-formed term in the language must
have a value. So, what is a value of fix id?
There isn't one!
Bottoms will be the null pointers of the 2010's, you watch.
This ×1000. Errors go in an error monad.
Including all possible manifestations of
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Ben Lippmeier b...@ouroborus.net wrote:
On 20/12/2011, at 6:06 PM, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
In denotational semantics,
On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
If you think a value might not reduce, return an error in an error monad.
Okay, I'm completely convinced! Now all that we have to do is to solve the
halting problem to make your solution work... :-)
Cheers,
On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Ben Lippmeier wrote:
Some would say that non-termination is a computational effect, and I can
argue either way depending on the day of the week.
*shrug* I figure that whether you call _|_ a value is like whether you accept
the Axiom of Choice: it is a
Отправлено с iPhone
Dec 20, 2011, в 14:40, Jesse Schalken jesseschal...@gmail.com написал(а):
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Gregory Crosswhite gcrosswh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Ben Lippmeier
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
If you think a value might not reduce, return an error in an error monad.
Okay, I'm completely convinced! Now all that we have to do is to solve
the halting
On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
Why do you have to solve the halting problem?
You have to solve the halting problem if you want to replace every place where
_|_ could occur with an Error monad (or something similar), because _|_
includes occasions when functions will never
On 20/12/2011, at 21:52 , Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
Some would say that non-termination is a computational effect, and I can
argue either way depending on the day of the week.
*shrug* I figure that whether you call _|_ a value is like whether you
accept the Axiom of Choice: it is a
Tillmann Rendel wrote:
Hi,
Robert Clausecker wrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff would you add to your language, what stuff
would you remove and what
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
Why do you have to solve the halting problem?
You have to solve the halting problem if you want to replace every place
where _|_ could occur with an Error
What I think to be the hard part to do is to put this on the type system, e.g.:
intDiv x y = if y x then 0 else 1 + (intDiv (x - y) y)
Should not compile. Otherwise you will need the bottom value.
Am I missing something?
Thiago.
2011/12/20 Jesse Schalken jesseschal...@gmail.com:
On Tue,
On Dec 20, 2011, at 11:21 PM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Gregory Crosswhite gcrosswh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
Why do you have to solve the halting problem?
You have to solve the halting problem if you want to
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Robert Clausecker fuz...@gmail.comwrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff would you add to your language, what stuff
would
One thing that concerns me is the use of capital letters to distinguish type
and class names and constructors from values. If I was doing it over I
would use a typographical distinction like italics for types, bold for
classes. That way we could have a constructor named ∅, a function named
With GHC 7.0.3:
$ cat test.hs
class ℝ a where {
test :: a;
};
(∈) :: Eq a = a - [a] - Bool;
x ∈ (y:ys) = x == y || x ∈ ys;
main = putStrLn Two of three ain't bad (^_~);
$ runhaskell test.hs
Two of three ain't bad (^_~)
$
On 20/12/2011, David Fox dds...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011
On 20 Dec 2011, at 22:51, Chris Wong wrote:
One thing that concerns me is the use of capital letters to distinguish type
and class names and constructors from values. If I was doing it over I
would use a typographical distinction like italics for types, bold for
classes. That way we could
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Dec 20, 2011, at 11:21 PM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcrosswh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
Why do you have to
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 17:52, Jesse Schalken jesseschal...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Gregory Crosswhite gcrosswh...@gmail.com
wrote:
That would certainly be a lovely idea *if* we were programming in Agda,
but I was under the assumption that this conversation was
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Farkas-Dyck
strake...@gmail.com wrote:
With GHC 7.0.3:
$ cat test.hs
class ℝ a where {
test :: a;
};
(∈) :: Eq a = a - [a] - Bool;
x ∈ (y:ys) = x == y || x ∈ ys;
main = putStrLn Two of three ain't bad (^_~);
$ runhaskell test.hs
Two of three
MigMit wrote:
Dec 20, 2011, в 14:40, Jesse Schalken jesseschal...@gmail.com написал(а):
If you think a value might not reduce, return an error in an error monad.
Then the caller is forced to handle the case of an error, or propagate the
error upwards. The error can also be handled in
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Chris Wong
chrisyco+haskell-c...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not expand it even further?
class Monoid m where
(•) :: m - m - m
(∅) :: m
(∈) :: (Foldable t, Eq a) = a - t a - Bool
(∘) :: (b - c) - (a - b) - (a - c)
(∧) :: Bool - Bool - Bool
etc.
We
On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 16:53 -0500, Matthew Farkas-Dyck wrote:
Two of three ain't bad (^_~)
Now we just need λ to replace \, → to replace -, and ≠ to replace /=
(which still looks like division assignment no matter how hard I squint
my eyes. 25 years of C and C derived languages is hard to
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 21:05, Andrew Cowie
and...@operationaldynamics.comwrote:
Now we just need λ to replace \, → to replace -, and ≠ to replace /=
(which still looks like division assignment no matter how hard I squint
my eyes. 25 years of C and C derived languages is hard to forget).
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:17:32PM +0100, Hans Aberg wrote:
The monospace characters U+1D670-1D6A3 might be used for keywords. Font:
http://www.stixfonts.org/
I feel that monospace fonts should be used for all of programming. A
language could use Unicode symbols, but if it enforces
language, what would
you do different?
On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 16:53 -0500, Matthew Farkas-Dyck wrote:
Two of three ain't bad (^_~)
Now we just need λ to replace \, → to replace -, and ≠ to replace /=
(which still looks like division assignment no matter how hard I squint
my eyes. 25 years of C and C
language, what would
you do different?
On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 16:53 -0500, Matthew Farkas-Dyck wrote:
Two of three ain't bad (^_~)
Now we just need λ to replace \, → to replace -, and ≠ to replace /=
(which still looks like division assignment no matter how hard I squint
my eyes. 25 years of C and C
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Ben Lippmeier b...@ouroborus.net wrote:
On 20/12/2011, at 6:06 PM, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
* Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com [2011-12-19 19:10:32-0800]
* Documentation that discourages thinking about bottom as a 'value'.
It's
not a value, and that
On 21 Dec 2011, at 08:24, Alexander Solla wrote:
I would rather have an incomplete semantic, and have all the incomplete parts
collapsed into something we call bottom.
I don't see the reason to limit ourselves to that. Of course, in total
languages like Agda there is no need for (_|_). But
On Dec 21, 2011, at 2:14 PM, scooter@gmail.com wrote:
I'd suggest, in addition to the symbols, renaming some of the fundamental
types and concepts, like Monad. I would violently agree that Monad is the
correct term, but try to communicate with a commodity software developer
sometime
On Dec 21, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
I would rather have an incomplete semantic, and have all the incomplete parts
collapsed into something we call bottom. We can then be smart and stay
within a total fragment of the language (where bottom is guaranteed to not
occur).
Support for long binary data sections would be nice.
--
Jason Dusek
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On Dec 21, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Jesse Schalken wrote:
I don't have experience with proof assistants, but maybe my answer to this
thread can be summed up as giving Haskell that kind of capability. ;)
Okay, then suffice it to say that most of what you said *is* implemented in
real languages
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff would you add to your language, what stuff
would you remove and what problems would you solve completely different?
Thanks in
A mascot :)
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Robert Clausecker fuz...@gmail.com wrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff would you add to your language, what
After eight years I'm still discovering why various decisions made in
Haskell are right.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Robert Clausecker fuz...@gmail.comwrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need
On Dec 20, 2011, at 5:20 AM, Robert Clausecker wrote:
What stuff would you add to your language
Gratuitous use of parentheses.
Cheers,
Greg___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Robert Clausecker fuz...@gmail.comwrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff would you add to your language, what stuff
would
* Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com [2011-12-19 19:10:32-0800]
* Documentation that discourages thinking about bottom as a 'value'. It's
not a value, and that is what defines it.
In denotational semantics, every well-formed term in the language must
have a value. So, what is a value of fix
99 matches
Mail list logo
