Would anyone else like to volunteer to write a section of the report for
specific proposals below?
In
==
#74: add some kind of concurrency: SM, HN, IJ
#35: add ForeignFunctionInterface: MC, SM
#49: add multi parameter type classes: MS
#60: add RankNTypes or Rank2Types: AL
#57:
I would like to suggest a correction to ticket #56,
Pattern Guards.
It is easy to show that every expression written
using pattern guards can also be written in
Haskell 98 in a way that is essentially
equivalent in simplicity. (Proof below.)
In my opinion, the Haskell 98 version below is
more
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 04:40:30PM +0300, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Now given any function binding using pattern guards:
funlhs
| qual11, qual12, ..., qual1n = exp1
| qual21, qual22, ..., qual2n = exp2
...
we translate the function binding into Haskell 98 as:
funlhs = runExit $ do
Hi
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
I would like to suggest a correction to ticket #56,
Pattern Guards.
It is easy to show that every expression written
using pattern guards can also be written in
Haskell 98 in a way that is essentially
equivalent in simplicity. (Proof below.)
Whether or not your
Hello,
I think that pattern guards are a nice generalization of ordinary
guards and they should be added to the language. Of course, as you
point out, we can encode them using the Maybe monad, but the same is
true for nested patterns, and I don't think that they should be
removed from Haskell.
Ravi Nanavati has very helpfully put together a status report for the
Haskell Prime process. Please see this link, or read the pasted text
below:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Status'
This wiki is really neat. I do wish there was some information in it about
the
The rule-of-thumb (only violated in a few instances) has been that each
proposal needs to be implemented in some Haskell compiler to be eligible
for consideration as part of Haskell'.
The pages that describe each proposal in detail (including Pros and
Cons) also generally include comments
Hello Conor,
Thursday, September 28, 2006, 10:30:46 PM, you wrote:
gcd x y | compare x y -
LT = gcd x (y - x)
GT = gcd (x - y) y
gcd x _ = x
or some such. I wish I could think of a better example without too much
context, but such a thing escapes me for the moment. In general,
Hello,
This particular example we can do with pattern guards
(although it seems that a simple 'case' is more appropriate for this example)
On 9/28/06, Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Conor,
Thursday, September 28, 2006, 10:30:46 PM, you wrote:
gcd x y | compare x y -
LT
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 02:59:49AM +0300, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Iavor Diatchki wrote:
I think that the benefit of adding pattern guards is... it provides
a concise notation
Not significantly more concise than existing notation.
That's just not true. If all your pattern guards happen to
10 matches
Mail list logo
