On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:13:36AM +0100, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
I am not sure what a local fixity declaration would mean
for an operator that is defined in some outer scope.
It would mean a whole new class of obfusciation ability for haskell
programmers :)
John
--
John Meacham -
Hello Johannes,
Friday, January 27, 2006, 1:00:42 PM, you wrote:
JW let instance Ord Item where ...
JW xs :: [ Item ] ; xs = ...
JW in sort xs
are you familiar with generic haskell? one of its features is the
local definitions of the special cases for generic functions, what is
close to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nhc didn't use to implement the M-R (maybe it does now). When
porting code to nhc this caused a few code changes. Perhaps
10 lines out of 1 when I tried the Bluespec compiler. So
my gut feeling is that the M-R is a rare beast in practise.
I can confirm that
On 30 Jan 2006, at 14:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 30 Jan 2006, at 14:28, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Another argument in favour of this is that most editors with
syntax
hilighting will show -- as a comment, which again increases the
confusion factor.
On 1/30/06, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've put a wiki page with a summary of this discussion here:
http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/Monomorph
ismRestriction
Hopefully I've captured most of the important points, please let me know
if there's anything
Seems like a convenient feature to me.
Also, you may want to have a function which works on a list of any
values which are both readable and showable.
Say (mockup syntax):
foo :: Show a, Read a = [a]
foo = [ 1, True, myRocketLauncher ]
Which would create a newtype called ShowReadAble or
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 30 January 2006 09:03, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
With the module system, we should make a distinction between
declaring
(1) that we want to use a module
(2) how to bring the module's names into scope
Perhaps 'import' should be allowed anywhere
Quoting Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree, this is not a great argument, but the fact that the language
is inconsistent, and that it confuses people easily, and can't come
up with great error messages when it does go wrong, (my original
arguments) really are good arguments for fixing
No language can serve all of the people all of the time, but I think
we should just do our best with a single standard. I think that the
complexity of multiple languages / layers / standards would not be
worth the payoff.
My original understanding of the Haskell' effort was that it was *not*
