Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
= Partial p i b | p i - b where ... -- (*)
I think it's fine. The p i b on the left is effectively a tuple also.
The problem is that Partial p i b is application, while p i is not.
Also, p i (on the right) denotes a set, not a tuple.
I think this syntax is
Stephanie wrote:
Simon,
Why is an Appendix is better than just a footnote in the Standard that
says we aren't sure, one way or the other, whether FDs will stay in
the language for ever. Why do we need this extra structure?
I'm worried that this extra structure could be confusing. In
John Hughes:
Haskell' should define a standard language for use TODAY--and it
should be 100% clear what that language is, with no pussy-footing
around difficult choices. In my view it should include FDs. Then in
the future they may be replaced--but it should then be clear that this
IS a
