Occasionally I have to explicitly add a type annotation, either for
clarity or to help choose a typeclass instance. Usually top-level
type annotations take care of this, but sometimes it's convenient to
only annotate a certain value, e.g. one argument of a lambda.
I've noticed that while vanilla
This is already a separate extension: PatternSignatures. However, that
extension is deprecated for some reason.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com wrote:
Occasionally I have to explicitly add a type annotation, either for
clarity or to help choose a typeclass
Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com writes:
Would it make sense to split it into a separate extension like
TypesOnArguments so I can more accurately express my deviation from
haskell2010 orthodoxy? Or is there some deeper tie between scoped
type variables and annotations on arguments?
I've also
Hi all, I have some problem with ScopedTypeVariables, let and so on,
at least in GHC 7.
My aim is to be able to supply a polymorphic type signature in let
bindings. Confusingly, I find no such example in the blog post about
local let generalization [1]. I first met this problem when porting
some
On May 21, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Paolo G. Giarrusso wrote:
Hi all, I have some problem with ScopedTypeVariables, let and so on,
at least in GHC 7.
My aim is to be able to supply a polymorphic type signature in let
bindings. Confusingly, I find no such example in the blog post about
local let
I have no problems in defining those functions:
$ ghci
GHCi, version 6.12.3: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
Loading package ghc-prim ... linking ... done.
Loading package integer-gmp ... linking ... done.
Loading package base ... linking ... done.
Loading package ffi-1.0 ... linking ...
On Saturday 21 May 2011 14:55:54, Paolo G. Giarrusso wrote:
However, it turns out that
Prelude let id2 :: Int - Int = \x - x
works but there's no way whatsoever to make the following work:
Prelude let (id2 :: forall t. t - t) = \x - x
Works without problems or extensions in the form
Prelude
On May 21, 3:18 pm, Felipe Almeida Lessa felipe.le...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have no problems in defining those functions:
$ ghci
GHCi, version 6.12.3:http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
Loading package ghc-prim ... linking ... done.
Loading package integer-gmp ... linking ... done.
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:17, Paolo G. Giarrusso p.giarru...@gmail.comwrote:
First, thanks to you and everybody for the alternative. But I'm still
convinced that the syntax is supposed to work, and you're just
workarounding the bug.
Hm, I think we have differing expectations; the syntax
On Saturday 21 May 2011 16:17:53, Paolo G. Giarrusso wrote:
Moreover, the proposed solution not always works.
Neither of these work:
let f :: x - x; g :: y - y; (f, g) = (id, id)
let f :: x - x; g :: y - y; (f, g) = (f, g)
Requires -XNoMonoPatBinds
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Paolo G. Giarrusso
p.giarru...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, I'm convinced that the argument of let is a pattern, on
which a signature is allowed, and GHC correctly understands that, so
that this declaration work:
let (id :: Int - Int) = \x - x
See both of:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 16:27, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:17, Paolo G. Giarrusso p.giarru...@gmail.com
wrote:
First, thanks to you and everybody for the alternative. But I'm still
convinced that the syntax is supposed to work, and you're just
On Saturday 21 May 2011 16:17:53, Paolo G. Giarrusso wrote:
As I said, I'm convinced that the argument of let is a pattern, on
which a signature is allowed, and GHC correctly understands that, so
that this declaration work:
let (id :: Int - Int) = \x - x
I don't think that
Prelude let a ::
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 16:46, Felipe Almeida Lessa
felipe.le...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Paolo G. Giarrusso
p.giarru...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, I'm convinced that the argument of let is a pattern, on
which a signature is allowed, and GHC correctly understands
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:49, Paolo Giarrusso p.giarru...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 16:27, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:17, Paolo G. Giarrusso p.giarru...@gmail.com
wrote:
First, thanks to you and everybody for the alternative.
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 17:13, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:49, Paolo Giarrusso p.giarru...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 16:27, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:17, Paolo G. Giarrusso
16 matches
Mail list logo
