On 2/2/06, Henrik Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,To corroborate Wadler's law further.:-) Josef wrote:
Oh yes, it does happen that a single line comment begins with a special symbol. It has happened to me on several occations when using haddock annotation to my source code. It is all
For the last few days, my mail-box has been full of mail about the M-R,
lazy pattern
matching, n+k patterns, comment syntax--it's just like the good old
days! And that
worries me.
Each of these topics is a snake pit--a tricky area of language design,
with many
alternative possibilities and no
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 11:38 +0100, John Hughes wrote:
One such tool is wxHaskell--named by 19% of Haskell users in my survey,
it's the de facto standard GUI toolkit. wxHaskell makes essential use of
existential types in its interface, a strong reason for including them in
Haskell'. It also
I'm confident that it is premature to standardise functional
dependencies at this stage, very useful though they are. If you doubt
me, read the JFP journal submission that Martin Sulzmann and Peter
Stuckey and I have been working on.
http://research.microsoft.com/%7Esimonpj/papers/fd-chr
On 02 February 2006 09:52, John Hughes wrote:
Summary: 2 programs failed to compile due to type errors (anna,
gg).
One program did 19% more allocation, a few other programs
increased
allocation very slightly (2%).
pic +0.28% +19.27% 0.02
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:38:07AM +0100, John Hughes wrote:
The problem with Haskell 98 is that it *lacks* features which
have become absolutely essential to Haskell programmers today. Those
features are what really *need* discussion and energy spent on them.
[...]
I'd like to see clearer
Dear all,
Simon PJ wrote:
Multi-parameter type classes, yes. Functional dependencies, no.
My experience is that even with very simple applications of MPTCs,
I often end up needing functional dependencies to make things work.
Thus, if my hunch is right, and other people have a similar
Hello Manuel,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 3:40:26 AM, you wrote:
MMTC I am against such a change. The change would break existing software
MMTC (eg, Yampa) and secondly I don't buy the main sources of
MMTC confusion for beginners argument. The confusion arises only when a
MMTC single line
Hello John,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 4:24:06 AM, you wrote:
It can, but so far it's really ugly to apply transformations to entire
modules. A little syntactic sugar could be good there.
JM module $hat.Foo(..) where
JM ...
JM could mean pass the entire module through the 'hat' function of
Hello John,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 6:03:06 AM, you wrote:
Unfortunately, local instance declarations threaten the coherence
property of type classes and principle types. See for example,
``Functional pearl: implicit configurations—or, type classes reflect the
values of types'', Sect
Hello John,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 12:51:58 PM, you wrote:
JH Let me make clear that what concerns me is not the impact of the M-R on
JH space and time
JH performance on average. What concerns me is the difficulty of debugging
JH performance
JH problems.
may be it's better in such case
Hello Johannes,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 2:17:42 PM, you wrote:
JW When I first learned functional dependencies
JW I remember I was really confused by their syntax.
JW First, it is hard to find it defined:
i should wrote this earlier, but nevertheless:
Hugs documentation contains
... read the JFP journal submission that Martin Sulzmann and Peter
Stuckey and I have been working on.
http://research.microsoft.com/%7Esimonpj/papers/fd-chr
Has this list discussed using CHRs instead of fundeps?
Jim
___
Haskell-prime
Henrik Nilsson wrote:
Dear all,
Simon PJ wrote:
Multi-parameter type classes, yes. Functional dependencies, no.
My experience is that even with very simple applications of MPTCs,
I often end up needing functional dependencies to make things work.
As a user, I'll echo this. It seems to me
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:36:34AM -, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I'm confident that it is premature to standardise functional
dependencies at this stage, very useful though they are. If you doubt
me, read the JFP journal submission that Martin Sulzmann and Peter
Stuckey and I have been
Hmm. Seems I missed sending this to haskell-prime.
Sorry.
/Henrik
--
Henrik Nilsson
School of Computer Science and Information Technology
The University of Nottingham
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:34:30PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
Still, you could argue that it doesn't actually tell you the cause of
the problem: namely that ij are being evaluated twice as often as you
might expect by looking at the code.
Would not the entries count in the profile tip you off
Hello Bulat,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 3:48:45 PM, you wrote:
JW When I first learned functional dependencies
JW I remember I was really confused by their syntax.
JW First, it is hard to find it defined:
BZ Hugs documentation contains excellent introduction into the fundeps.
namely chapter
Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2006 01:32 schrieb Patryk Zadarnowski:
[...]
The proposal would be to remove the unary - altogether, and, instead,
extend the lexical syntax of numeric constant to allow + and - prefix.
Would this mean that (-x) is a section while (-1) isn't? That would be
confusing.
Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2006 11:49 schrieb Bulat Ziganshin:
[...]
i had one idea, what is somewhat corresponding to his discussion:
make a strict Haskell dialect. implement it by translating all
expressions of form f x into f $! x and then going to the standard
(lazy) haskell translator.
Am Montag, 30. Januar 2006 17:24 schrieb Taral:
On 1/30/06, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It gives you regexp and nothing more - this makes it a pain in the
arse to input every possible character that is/isn't allowed.
Steal it from places (vim):
syn match hsLineComment
On 03/02/2006, at 9:25 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2006 01:32 schrieb Patryk Zadarnowski:
[...]
The proposal would be to remove the unary - altogether, and,
instead,
extend the lexical syntax of numeric constant to allow + and -
prefix.
Would this mean that (-x)
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 09:54:59AM +1100, Patryk Zadarnowski wrote:
On 03/02/2006, at 9:25 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2006 01:32 schrieb Patryk Zadarnowski:
[...]
The proposal would be to remove the unary - altogether, and,
instead,
extend the lexical syntax of
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 03:09:35PM +, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
Now, I'm not saying that FDs are that important, only that it seems
to me they are. I'd be happy to be convinced of the opposite.
But from the above, it at least seems that John M. too actually
says that FDs are important?
Oh, I
One issue that pains me with Haskell 98 is that it does nothing about
one of its
original stated goals as a programming language.
I've always been very fond of pointing out that Haskell has been
designed as a
language for EXPERIMENTATION with language features, and therefore the
On 2/2/06, Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Montag, 30. Januar 2006 17:24 schrieb Taral:
On 1/30/06, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It gives you regexp and nothing more - this makes it a pain in the
arse to input every possible character that is/isn't allowed.
Steal
On 2/2/06, Benjamin Franksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would open the possibility to allow unary (prefix) operators in
general which I find rather more useful than sections.
Down that road lies APL.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:19:43PM -0600, Taral wrote:
Got a unicode-compliant compiler?
sure do :)
but it currently doesn't recognize any unicode characters as possible
operators. which it should, but I am just not sure how to specify that
yet until some sort of standard develops. Once there
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:19:09AM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
There is a potential confusion here between the H-core language as used
in the Haskell'98 report, and ghc's current external-core language.
The former contains classes, and the latter does not. Ghc-core has
type-lambdas, but
john:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:19:09AM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
There is a potential confusion here between the H-core language as used
in the Haskell'98 report, and ghc's current external-core language.
The former contains classes, and the latter does not. Ghc-core has
oh, not that I don't see your points about it not being a pragma, I just
wanted to point to some previous work on the matter. All I know for sure
is {-# OPTIONS ... #-} is not a very good solution :)
John
--
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
Just for larks, here is a side by side of the various compilers core for
the example on that page:
Haskell:
module FibMain where
main xs = pam daeh xs
daeh (x:xs) = x
pam f [] = []
pam f (x:xs) = f x : pam f xs
Yhc:
FibMain.pam v220 v221 =
case v221 of
Prelude.[] -
Ravi Nanavati wrote:
Multi-parameter type classes, yes. Functional dependencies, no.
My experience is that even with very simple applications of MPTCs,
I often end up needing functional dependencies to make things work.
As a user, I'll echo this.
Me three, etc.
Might it be worth
On 2/2/06, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but it currently doesn't recognize any unicode characters as possible
operators. which it should, but I am just not sure how to specify that
yet until some sort of standard develops. Once there are more unicode
compliant compilers out there
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:05:57PM +, Ross Paterson wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure about caseless underscore, concurrency, natural
numbers and parallel list comprehensions.
There is one more reason to leave concurrency out of the standard.
Some experts (like Hans Boehm) argue, that
35 matches
Mail list logo
