Re: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Bardur Arantsson wrote: > Please consider that the the way practical development really happens[2] ...among web developers, who of course are the only real developers? Have you considered that there are developers who are not web

Re: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 05/10/15 11:59, Simon Thompson wrote: > > There’s an old fashioned maxim that sums this up in a pithy way: > > “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. > But... it *is* broken. > Somehow, we managed to use Monad

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Several default implementations for instance methods

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Carter Schonwald carter.schonw...@gmail.com wrote: hrm, so youre wanting something even smarter than the MINIMAL pragma stuff, namely depending on which subset of the complementary methods are defined, define this method differently? I've been expecting

Re: PROPOSAL: Literate haskell and module file names

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Edward Kmett ekm...@gmail.com wrote: Foo+rst.lhs does nicely dodge the collision with jhc. Is this legal on Windows? -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com

Re: getWorkingDirectory/changeWorkingDirectory

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Benjamin Franksen benjamin.frank...@helmholtz-berlin.de wrote: Module System.Posix.Directory of the unix package defines getWorkingDirectory :: IO FilePath changeWorkingDirectory :: FilePath - IO () I believe the functionality is quite portable and not

Re: Status of Haskell'?

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote: Maybe the question is whether we have anything. We already skipped 2011 because there wasn't anything worth the effort of a new standard. How about MultiParamTypeClasses, RankNTypes, ExistentialQuantification, Do

Re: String != [Char]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 13:12, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote: Maybe your point is that neither take function should be used with unicode strings, but I don't see how advocating the Text type is going to help with that. I think we established earlier that the list-like operations on Text

Re: String != [Char]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 16:16, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote: On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:50:10AM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote: Using list-based operations on Strings are almost always wrong Data.Text seems to think that many of them are worth reimplementing for Text. It looks like someone's

Re: String != [Char]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 13:05, Edward Kmett ekm...@gmail.com wrote: Isn't it enough that it is part of the platform? As long as the entire Prelude and large chunks of the bootlibs are based around String, String will be preferred. String as a boxed singly-linked list type is therefore a major

Re: String != [Char]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 16:21, Nate Soares n...@so8r.es wrote: I think the 'naming issue' that you mention highlights the need for better use of type classes in the prelude. ...which is a rat's nest best avoided, unfortunately, unless the idea is to stifle it entirely. (How long have people

Re: What is a punctuation character?

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:56, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote: The fact that the Report is silent about encoding used to represent concrete Haskell programs in text files adds a certain level of non-portability (and confusion.) I found Specifying the encoding can

Re: What is a punctuation character?

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 14:30, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote: It is not clear what the language's lexemes are defined in terms of Unicode properties really means. Why would you need ascSmall (and similar ASCII character categories) then when you already have uniSmall

Re: What is a punctuation character?

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 15:20, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote: I believe this part has seen very little change from the Revised Haskell 98 Report. I was in fact looking at the Haskell 98 report at the time. It is not clear that it is an unintended leftover. Section

Re: Proposal: require spaces around the dot operator

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:37, Malcolm Wallace malcolm.wall...@me.comwrote: I agree with John. There is no point in fiddling with the dots, until we have real experience with a new records proposal (which can be implemented entirely without using dot, at least initially). I would claim