On 4 Jan 2009, at 07:11, Thomas DuBuisson wrote:
My proposal would be for each selector name to be a special type of
phantom type class (existing in the intermediate language only).
This type class would not be accessible by the programmer and thus
s/he couldn't make a polymorphic function for
Isaac Dupree m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org writes:
Derek Elkins wrote:
I haven't been able to find any semantic difficulties with this
addition.
I like it too... what I run into is that there's an implicit
assumption that module of name Foo.Bar.Baz *must* be found in a file
Ketil Malde wrote:
A module may be defined in a file with a name corresponding to the
module name, or any dot-separated prefix of it? I.e. the file
Foo/Bar.hs will define module Foo.Bar and optionally Foo.Bar.Baz as
well?
GHC should then be able to find it, and I believe it already has a
Cafe,
I was going to write about this earlier, but I'm so ill read on the
record selector papers that I deleted the draft.
My proposal would be for each selector name to be a special type of
phantom type class (existing in the intermediate language only).
This type class would not be accessible
Hi all,
There is currently a discussion on reddit/programming about Haskell.
One complaint is that Haskell functions often use abbreviated names. I
tend to agree with that. In my personal experience it generally takes
more time to learn a third party Haskell library than libraries
written in
module Element where
import QName
import ...
data Element = Element {name :: QName, attribs :: [Attr], content ::
[Content], line :: Maybe Line}
module Attr where
import QName
import ...
data Attr = Attr {key :: QName, val :: String}
module QName where
import ...
data QName = QName {name ::
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Miguel Mitrofanov miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
module Element where
import QName
import ...
data Element = Element {name :: QName, attribs :: [Attr], content ::
[Content], line :: Maybe Line}
module Attr where
import QName
import ...
data Attr = Attr {key
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 15:20 +0100, Felix Martini wrote:
Hi all,
There is currently a discussion on reddit/programming about Haskell.
One complaint is that Haskell functions often use abbreviated names. I
tend to agree with that. In my personal experience it generally takes
more time to
module Main where
import qualified QName as Q
import qualified Element as E
... Q.name ... E.name ...
I'm using this pattern of writing code and, so far, I find it very
convenient. Yet, the code is likely to be spread across lots of files,
which is not always a Good Thing.
That's a
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 23:48 +0300, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
module Main where
import qualified QName as Q
import qualified Element as E
... Q.name ... E.name ...
I'm using this pattern of writing code and, so far, I find it very
convenient. Yet, the code is likely to be spread
Derek Elkins wrote:
I haven't been able to find any semantic difficulties with this
addition.
I like it too... what I run into is that there's an implicit
assumption that module of name Foo.Bar.Baz *must* be found
in a file Foo/Bar/Baz.[l]hs . module Main seems to be the
only one exempted
Miguel Mitrofanov schrieb:
module Element where
import QName
import ...
data Element = Element {name :: QName, attribs :: [Attr], content ::
[Content], line :: Maybe Line}
module Attr where
import QName
import ...
data Attr = Attr {key :: QName, val :: String}
module QName where
12 matches
Mail list logo
