Re: Haskell 2010 libraries

Hello Simon, Friday, April 30, 2010, 1:42:33 PM, you wrote: During the Haskell 2010 process the committee agreed that the libraries in the report should be updated, i think: if committee assignment turned out to be ambiguous, it should be returned to committee. we can discuss it here but then

Re[2]: Haskell 2010: libraries

Hello Ganesh, Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 10:48:36 AM, you wrote: I don't have any strong opinion about whether there should be a library standard or not, but if there is a standard, how about putting the entire thing (perhaps including the Prelude) under the prefix Haskell2010. or similar? Most

Re[2]: Haskell 2010: libraries

Hello Ian, Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 3:20:42 AM, you wrote: We've been fortunate recently that, because the hierarchical modules haven't been in the standard, we've been able to extend and improve them without breaking compatibility with the language definition. but breaking compatibility with

Re[4]: Haskell 2010: libraries

Hello Ganesh, Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 11:59:00 AM, you wrote: I don't have any strong opinion about whether there should be a library standard or not, but if there is a standard, how about putting the entire thing (perhaps including the Prelude) under the prefix Haskell2010. or similar? Most

Re[2]: Haskell 2010: libraries

Hello Isaac, Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 11:05:44 PM, you wrote: It could be a mere informative reference: the most-community-accepted libraries at the time of publication are:. no, i mean that if we include some library in Haskell-2010, then it means that any compiler declared as

Re[2]: Announcing the new Haskell Prime process, and Haskell 2010

Hello Don, Thursday, July 9, 2009, 1:44:28 AM, you wrote: Tom Lokhorst suggests[1] Haskell'10 now i understand - Haskell committee was just skipping those unbeautiful one-digit years :) -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:bulat.zigans...@gmail.com

Re[2]: Announcing the new Haskell Prime process, and Haskell 2010

Hello kahl, Thursday, July 9, 2009, 2:43:01 AM, you wrote: Haskell'10 Some people expect Haskell and/or Haskell' not to be around anymore in 2110? it would be Haskell10 :) ability to accurately count apostrophes is one of the prerequisites to learn Haskell :D -- Best regards,

Re[2]: what about moving the record system to an addendum?

Hello Duncan, Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:15:42 AM, you wrote: For one thing the spec currently says that pragmas cannot change the semantics of the program. That would have to read apart from the LANGUAGE pragma. sometime ago i've proposed to make a language statement a part of haskell. i

Re: Announcing the new Haskell Prime process, and Haskell 2010

Hello Simon, Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 6:04:46 PM, you wrote: i can't understand. does this list supposed to be full list of changes in haskell'? it seems to include mainly supplementary syntax changes while even Rank2Types are not here, the same for assoc. types, GADTs and other fundamental type

Re[2]: One more 'do' pattern

Hello Thomas, Saturday, March 28, 2009, 12:05:02 PM, you wrote: In all honesty, I find the idea of adding yet more imperative looking stuff to do notation an appalling idea. We already get problems because people read do notation and think it means execute this in sequence (see threads

Re[6]: One more 'do' pattern

Hello Thomas, Saturday, March 28, 2009, 12:34:05 PM, you wrote: I'm not sure why industrial programming means programming not in a functional style. It certainly doesn't mean that where I work. what kind of problems you are solving? Large GUI applications doing lots of 3D rendering. and

Re[10]: One more 'do' pattern

Hello Thomas, Saturday, March 28, 2009, 12:55:39 PM, you wrote: And we can't possibly have written our own GUI library as part of the project? *you* can. i cannot. instead, i write a lot of code that implements features lacking in gtk2hs generally, i have very opposite positions in Haskell

Re[10]: One more 'do' pattern

Hello Thomas, Saturday, March 28, 2009, 1:04:01 PM, you wrote: To get back on topic though... Here's *why* I don't want these specific things I wouldn't use added to haskell: • The syntax gains very little over the nice consistent syntax we already have – all you do is move a symbol a

Re[2]: One more 'do' pattern

of just one monad.   - Conal On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Bulat Ziganshin bulat.zigans...@gmail.com wrote: Hello haskell-prime, as we know, the following code action x y = \v - do can be shortened to following v - action x y but there is one more very

FFI and fixed-size integer types

Hello , citating letter from cafe After reading an ISO draft for standard C, I found a few types that could be usefull when binding to libraries (these are from stdint.h): int8_t, uint8_t, int16_t, uint16_t, int32_t, uint32_t, int64_t, uint64_t i propose to change FFI addendum so that

Re[2]: Meta-point: backward compatibility

Hello Neil, Thursday, April 24, 2008, 12:21:41 PM, you wrote: Some questions: don't forget about most complex part: does this tool will convert human minds? :D -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___

Re[2]: patch applied (haskell-prime-status): add Make $ left associative, like application

Hello Cale, Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 10:54:06 AM, you wrote: By the way, as Don suggests, I do strongly advocate this change, and i agree that the change by itself is reasonable, but fixing all the old issues and providing new beautiful language version should be project of its own. for

Re[4]: patch applied (haskell-prime-status): add Make $ left associative, like application

Hello Cale, Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 11:26:49 AM, you wrote: f x+y = (x+y)^2 f x + y = x^2 + y imho, it's easy to see what there are no spaces around + on first line, but there are spaces at the second. imho, it's just our habits - ignore spaces and split expression by operators actually,

Re[2]: Meta-point: backward compatibility

Hello Philippa, Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 10:53:54 PM, you wrote: Current practice often involves removing certain warts anyway - the MR being a great example. it's already in ghc for a years and doesn't affect too much code. we need a solid base of a language to write to, to learn, to

Re[2]: patch applied (haskell-prime-status): add Make $ left associative, like application

Hello Lennart, Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 11:38:50 PM, you wrote: Just pick some other (Unicode?) operator, but leave $ alone. good said. i have my own version of /|| which i love more but they are called /||| -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re[2]: patch applied (haskell-prime-status): add Make $ left associative, like application

Hello Niklas, Thursday, April 24, 2008, 12:42:02 AM, you wrote: But then I started questioning my own motives. What changes would that be? Changing a . to a $ if I decided to remove the previous last piece of the pipeline? Doesn't seem too hairy, and I have to do far worse than that already

Re[2]: patch applied (haskell-prime-status): add Make $ left associative, like application

Hello John, Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 9:41:22 AM, you wrote: Haskell' will not be fully Haskell 98 compatible. But it won't break things too much hopefully. And no doubt compilers will have strategies for mixing h98 and h' code. aside compilers, there are people, too. are we really want to

Re[2]: patch applied (haskell-prime-status): add overloaded string literals

Hello Wolfgang, Friday, April 11, 2008, 6:19:26 PM, you wrote: Would it be possible to change the class name “IsString” to something different? Would it be possible to remove the type alias “String” and let “String” be the class name? Can I add this remark somewhere on the wiki? this

Proposal: hands off the base! :)

Hello Twan, Thursday, January 17, 2008, 2:00:37 AM, you wrote: An often requested function is 'split', to split a list into parts delimited by some separator. ByteString has the functions split and splitWith for this purpose. I propose we add equivalents to Data.List: one more proposal to

Standard libraries

Hello haskell-prime, one more proposal is about standard libs. it is well known that today libs outweighs all other parts of modern language and work on their standardization will probably stall the whole Haskell-prime process. OTOH, languages like Java was grown due to their rich set of

Haskell'2008

Hello haskell-prime, i propose to omit type functions/families from standard you are currently developing and leave only MPTC (without FDs) here reason: it not yet included in GHC. probably, it will be in 6.10 next fall. then we will need one more year to prove its usefulness and one more year

Re[2]: Make it possible to evaluate monadic actions when assigning record fields

Hello Neil, Thursday, July 12, 2007, 3:10:10 PM, you wrote: This extension seems like a great idea - my only concern would be about the order of computations. Clearly left-to-right makes sense, but this may break some natural intuition in Haskell: i think that undefined order will be a best

Re[2]: Make it possible to evaluate monadic actions when assigning record fields

Hello Simon, Wednesday, July 11, 2007, 11:38:31 AM, you wrote: So Greg's idea (or at least my understanding thereof) is to write it like this: do { f $(stuff1) $(stuff2) } Simon, it is thing i dreamed for a years! Haskell has serious drawback for imperative programming compared to

Re: default fixity for `quotRem`, `divMod` ??

Hello Isaac, Monday, June 18, 2007, 9:20:29 PM, you wrote: I was just bitten in ghci by `divMod` being the default infixl 9 instead of the same as `div` and `mod`. one of my hard-to-find bugs was exactly in this area: i wrote something like x `div` y+1 instead of x `div` (y+1) so, based

Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] global variables

Hello Isaac, Sunday, May 20, 2007, 6:41:54 PM, you wrote: Maybe some sort of ISOLATE, DON'T_OPTIMIZE (but CAF), or USED_AS_GLOBAL_VARIABLE pragma instead of just the insufficient NOINLINE would be a good first step... or LOOK_BUT_DON'T_TOUCH :) -- Best regards, Bulat

Re: General pattern bindings

Hello Twan, Saturday, April 14, 2007, 5:43:03 AM, you wrote: I did not even know these things existed, is there anyone who actually uses general pattern bindings? b:kb:mb:gb:_ = iterate (1024*) 1 unfortunately, they got monotypes, so at last end i finished with simpler definitions

Re[2]: List syntax (was: Re: help from the community?)

Hello Brian, Saturday, February 3, 2007, 10:55:52 AM, you wrote: bracket_ (enter a) (exit a) (do b c)-- looks like LISP... this pattern is very typical in my programs and i use '$' before last

Re[4]: ADT views Re: [Haskell] Views in Haskell

Hello J., Thursday, February 1, 2007, 1:36:33 AM, you wrote: Yes - you've reiterated Wadler's original design, with an automatic problems with equational reasoning raised by this approach. ok, i can live without it. i mean reasoning :) i guess that anything more complex than Turing machine

Re[2]: [Haskell] Views in Haskell

Hello Rene, Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 10:49:06 PM, you wrote: Going by the traffic over the previous months, I think that class aliases or extensible records would be higher on most peoples lists than views. i think that proper views is a must for Haskell - We are keen on abstraction, but

ADT views Re: [Haskell] Views in Haskell

Hello Simon, Monday, January 22, 2007, 5:57:27 PM, you wrote: adding view patterns to Haskell. many of us was attracted to Haskell because it has clear and simple syntax. but many Hugs/GHC extensions done by independent developers differ in the syntax they used, because these developers either

Re[2]: ADT views Re: [Haskell] Views in Haskell

Hello David, Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 7:12:05 PM, you wrote: data Coord = Coord Float Float view of Coord = Polar Float Float where Polar r d= Coord (r*d) (r+d)-- construction Coord x y | x/=0 || y/=0 = Polar (x*y) (x+y)-- matching This is

Re[2]: Teaching

Hello Iavor, Thursday, November 30, 2006, 8:41:43 PM, you wrote: However, I am not sure that this particular use justifies the addition of defaulting to the _language_. For example, it is possible that defaulting is implemented as a switch to the command-line interpreter. how about using

Standard (core) libraries initiative: rationale

Hello libraries, like computer is a net, nowadays language is a library. there is nothing exceptional in C++ and Java languages except for their huge library codebase that makes them so widely appreciated while it's impossible for Haskell to have the same level of libraries maturity, we can try

Re[2]: base libraries

Hello Malcolm, Friday, November 24, 2006, 8:26:11 PM, you wrote: i think that we should require H' compatibility instead of H98 one, so require to not use fundeps, but allow MPTC. this means that NHC should be ruled out as non-H' compliant compiler instead of these libs Why pick on nhc98?

Re[2]: String literals

Hello Simon, Monday, November 13, 2006, 8:27:08 PM, you wrote: In my experience I've seen more requests for overloaded *Boolean* literals than strings. In a Fran context, for example. what you mean by this? а few days ago i've published in cafe small lib that allows to write things like (str

Annotation system for Haskell

Both Java and C# provides annotations that can be used to pass some additional information about code to around-language tools and queried at program runtime via Reflection API: [AuthorAttribute (Ben Albahari)] class A { [Localizable(true)] public String Text { get {return text;

Re: String literals

Hello Lennart, Saturday, November 11, 2006, 6:49:15 AM, you wrote: class IsString s where fromString :: String - s My guess is that the defaulting mechanism needs to be extended to default to the String type as well, imho, it is MUST BE. this will allow to became ByteString and any

Re[2]: String literals

Hello Donald, Saturday, November 11, 2006, 7:33:48 AM, you wrote: Yes, pattern matching is the issue that occurs to me too. While string literals :: ByteString would be nice (and other magic encoded in string literals, I guess), what is the story for pattern matching on strings based on

Re[4]: [Haskell-cafe] Fractional/negative fixity?

Hello Nicolas, Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 1:25:23 AM, you wrote: prec ?? $ over-specification). You want ?? to bind more tightly than does $; that's exactly what this approach would let you specify. and how then compiler will guess that is relational priority of this operator comparing

Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Fractional/negative fixity?

Hello Henning, Monday, November 6, 2006, 1:27:54 PM, you wrote: print msg `on` mode==debug but failed because my code frequently contains '$' and there is no way to define operation with a lower precedence This could be solved by the solutions proposed in this thread:

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Fractional/negative fixity?

Hello Dan, Saturday, November 4, 2006, 5:07:15 AM, you wrote: Here's an idea that (I think) is useful and backwards compatible: fractional and negative fixity. yes, i think the same. for example, once i've tried to define postfix 'when' operator like those in perl/ruby print msg `on`

Re[2]: Proposal for stand-alone deriving declarations?

Hello Brian, Thursday, November 2, 2006, 12:15:38 AM, you wrote: In particular, I think having features like : import M1 hiding (instance C T) and     module M hiding (instance C T) would eliminate the need for special-case handling of derived instances (if two imported modules happen

Re[2]: Proposal for stand-alone deriving declarations?

Hello Malcolm, Thursday, November 2, 2006, 12:46:43 AM, you wrote: instance Num (Bar z) where and instance Num (Bar z) The former declares that _no_ methods are defined (except for defaults), and the latter, with your proposal, that _all_ methods are defined. The i join to this

Re[2]: digit groups

Hello Iavor, Thursday, October 26, 2006, 4:51:00 AM, you wrote: kb,mg,gb :: Num a = a kb = 1024 mb = 1024 * kb gb = 1024 * mb b :kb :mb :gb :_ = iterate (1024*) 1 :: [Int] b_:kb_:mb_:gb_:tb_:_ = iterate (1024*) 1 :: [Integer] and now we can write (4 * kb) instead for 4096. btw,

Re[4]: digit groups

Hello Taral, Thursday, October 26, 2006, 6:33:44 PM, you wrote: btw, your variant requires re-calculating values on each their use That's what constant folding is for. are c.f. should work for polymorhic values? afaiu, it's just the problem that leads to the famous monomorhism restriction.

Re[2]: digit groups

Hello Jon, Wednesday, October 25, 2006, 6:37:33 PM, you wrote: 0x_3729 makes perfect sense as hex and the _ does a nice job of separating the digits into readable groups. 0x~~3729 looks similar, but doesn't mean the same thing at all. 0x~~0x3729 is ugly and probably less

Re: Module imports anywhere

Hello Henning, Sunday, October 22, 2006, 5:48:11 PM, you wrote: I don't see the benefit of allowing imports anywhere at top-level. it is useful to move together imports and related code. say: #if HUGS import Hugs.Base addInt = hugsAddInt #elseif GHC import GHC.Base addInt = ghcAddInt #endif

Re: Standard syntax for preconditions, postconditions, and invariants

Hello Alan, Thursday, October 19, 2006, 5:54:06 PM, you wrote: I propose that haskell' include a standard syntax for invariants that the programmer wants to express. The intent is not to have standardized checks on the invariants, its just to supply a common way to specify invariants to

Re[2]: (Pattern) Guards in lambdas

Hello Claus, Wednesday, October 18, 2006, 2:44:29 PM, you wrote: (\ arms ) x this looks great. smth like: proc $ \[x] - x*2 \[x,y] - x*y \[]- 0 -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Concurrency

Hello William, Sunday, October 15, 2006, 5:07:26 PM, you wrote: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~lipeng/homepage/unify.html can this be ported to windows? (i don't yet read the paper) -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Two things that i still can't understand in Haskell standard

Hello haskell-prime, first is the monomorphism restriction. why isn't it possible to check _kind_ of parameter-less equation and apply monomorphism restrictions only to values of kind '*'? so, this: sum = foldr1 (*) will become polymorphic because its kind is '*-*' while this exps = 1 : map

three syntax-sugar proposals

Hello haskell-prime, 1. allow to use '_' in number literals. its used in Ruby and i found that this makes long number literals much more readable. for example maxint = 2_147_483_648 2. allow to use string literals in patterns as head of matched list: optionValue (kb++n) = read n * 2^10

Re[2]: Pattern guards

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,

Re[4]: Exceptions

Hello Manuel, Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 9:17:46 PM, you wrote: So, both features are truly orthogonal and, in fact, they are synergetic! More precisely, an alternative syntax for Löh/Hinze open types are overlapping type families. So, we might define S alternatively as data

Re[2]: Exceptions

Hello Simon, Thursday, August 31, 2006, 12:33:26 PM, you wrote: I don't think we need more extensions to do a reasonable job of extensible exceptions: http://www.haskell.org/~simonmar/papers/ext-exceptions.pdf i'm not yet read but guess that this is paper you will present at ICFP? can you

Re[2]: Exceptions

Hello Andres, Friday, September 1, 2006, 2:27:34 PM, you wrote: Thanks for your interest in open data types. As one of the authors of the open data types paper, I'd like to comment on the current discussion. i'm not yet read about this, but may be open types have something in common with

Re[2]: map and fmap

Hello Duncan, Tuesday, August 15, 2006, 2:37:50 AM, you wrote: If it goes in that direction it'd be nice to consider the issue of structures which cannot support a polymorphic map. Of course such specialised containers (eg unboxed arrays or strings) are not functors but they are still useful

allow to give default implementatoions for methods of base class

Hello Jon, Monday, August 14, 2006, 1:49:58 PM, you wrote: instance Monad [] where fmap = map return x = [x] join = concat i support this idea. [...] I'm not sure it's quite right. Surely it only makes sense if it defines all the (necessary) superclass methods -- in

Re[4]: All Monads are Functors

Hello Taral, Monday, August 14, 2006, 3:34:29 PM, you wrote: On 8/14/06, Jon Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: of course, there's no reason to do that, but what I'm proposing is that we allow default instance declarations in class declarations in much the same way as default methods: I

Re[2]: Class System current status

Hello Stephanie, Thursday, May 11, 2006, 5:45:15 PM, you wrote: - We're already in that state. There *is* a lot of Haskell code that uses FDs, it's just not Haskell 98 code. Whenever ATs take over, we'll still have to deal with this code. are you sure about *lots* ? i seen only 3-4 ones

Re[2]: Class System current status

Hello Johannes, Friday, May 12, 2006, 4:18:29 PM, you wrote: = Partial p i b | p i - b where ... -- (*) (*) A funny visual aspect of FDs is the absurd syntax. On the left of |, the whitespace is (type arg) application, but on the right, it suddenly denotes sequencing (tupling) i

Re[2]: Class System current status

Hello Simon, Friday, May 12, 2006, 8:05:25 PM, you wrote: My suggestion is this: * Specify MPTCs in the main language * Specify FDs in an Appendix (with some reasonably conservative interpretation of FDs). * A Haskell' implementation should implement the Appendix, and

Re: Class ATs Question

Hello Ashley, Friday, April 28, 2006, 5:09:07 AM, you wrote: You can do two-way fundeps. Can these be done with associated types? For instance: It might not be a great loss if not. may be you want to say it might be a great loss ? i'm using two-way fundeps to implement monad-independent

Re[2]: deeqSeq proposal

Hello John, Tuesday, April 11, 2006, 2:43:49 AM, you wrote: true. in any case, deepseq is not always a win. don't forget that Andy don't plan to apply deepSeq to any expression. in his program, there is a LARGE datastructure with a couple of unevaluated thunks what may be simplified by call to

Re[2]: FFI, safe vs unsafe

Hello John, Tuesday, April 4, 2006, 5:55:19 AM, you wrote: In my survey of when 'reentrant concurrent' was needed, I looked at all the standard libraries and didn't find anywhere it was actually needed. Are there some compelling examples of when it is really needed in a setting that doesn't

Deriving for newtypes

Hello , as i see, it was some form of formal specification for subj: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/haskell-1990-2000/msg05468.html -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Haskell-prime mailing list

Re[2]: 'deriving Tree (Eq,Ord)'

Hello Ross, Tuesday, April 4, 2006, 4:55:09 PM, you wrote: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/haskell-1990-2000/msg00727.html (Making 'deriving' a separate declaration instead of a clause) Orphan instances are discouraged in the GHC libraries, so there might not be much support for adding a

Re[2]: FFI, safe vs unsafe

Hello John, Monday, April 3, 2006, 12:53:05 PM, you wrote: new stacks can be allocated by alloca() calls. all these alloca-allocated stack segments can be used as pool of stacks assigned to the forked threads. although i don't tried this, my own library also used processor-specific method.

Re[2]: FFI, safe vs unsafe

Hello John, Saturday, April 1, 2006, 4:53:00 AM, you wrote: In an implementation which runs more than one Haskell thread inside one OS thread, like ghc without -threaded or hugs, the threads are NOT completely independent, because they share one C stack. So while no, state-threads, a la

Re[4]: thread priorities?

Hello Simon, Friday, March 31, 2006, 4:57:19 PM, you wrote: threadSetPriority :: ThreadID - Int - IO () it was requested by Joel Reymont, and he even give us information how that is implemented in Erlang, together with hint to assign higher priorities to consuming threads. Yes, but the

Re[2]: Concurrency

Hello David, Saturday, April 1, 2006, 4:31:05 PM, you wrote: I'd like to be sure that asynchronous exceptions can get into the standard. They require concurrency, but I'm not sure that they're included in John's page. this an another ticket It would also be nice to address signal behavior,

the following program can't be compiled with ghc 6.4.1

to be fair, it also don't work with Hugs 03 and Hugs 05 data UnboxedMutableArray i e = UMA !i !i type IOUArray i e = UnboxedMutableArray i e data Dynamic a i e = Dynamic (a i e) type DynamicIOUArray s = Dynamic IOUArray if second line substituted with the following type IOUArray =

unicode/internalization issues

Hello haskell-prime, i've planned some time ago to open unicode/internalization wiki page, what reflects current state of the art in this area. here is the information i have, please add/correct me if i don't know something or wrong. 1. Char supports full Unicode range (about million of chars)

Re[2]: important news: refocusing discussion

Hello Ross, Saturday, March 25, 2006, 4:16:01 AM, you wrote: On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 02:47:09PM -, Simon Marlow wrote: I think it would be a mistake to relegate concurrency to an addendum; it is a central feature of the language, and in fact is one area where Haskell (strictly speaking

Re: Ticket #15: add a binary IO interface

Hello Bulat, Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 4:38:13 PM, you wrote: BZ about this - i'm almost sure that current widely used libraries BZ (NewBinary) is not as good as my own one BZ (http://freearc.narod.ru/Streams.tar.gz) is not ever used and even BZ still not documented, so it is not easy to make

Re[2]: Strict tuples

Hello Wolfgang, Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 1:29:24 AM, you wrote: you said WHAT you think but not said WHY? my motivation is to be able to use myriads of already implemented algorithms on new datatypes as i said, shebang patterns allow only to specify that IMPLEMENTATION of some function is

Ticket #15: add a binary IO interface

Hello , about this - i'm almost sure that current widely used libraries (NewBinary) is not as good as my own one (http://freearc.narod.ru/Streams.tar.gz) is not ever used and even still not documented, so it is not easy to make right choice :) -- Best regards, Bulat

Re[2]: Strict tuples

Hello Simon, Monday, March 20, 2006, 1:47:52 PM, you wrote: i've proposed to allow adding strict mark to any type constructors and type constructor parameters so that finally we can define any data structure that can be defined in strict languages. in particular: type StrictPair a b = !(,)

Re[2]: the MPTC Dilemma (please solve)

Hello Lennart, Sunday, March 19, 2006, 4:05:03 AM, you wrote: LA I have to agree with Manuel. I write a lot of Haskell code. LA People even pay me to do it. I usually stay with Haskell-98, when i wrote application code, i also don't used extensions very much, i even don't used Haskell-98 very

Re[4]: Keep the present Haskell record system!

Hello Claus, Monday, March 6, 2006, 2:35:04 PM, you wrote: also, while i like dynamic records for some types of tasks, i think that the spirit of Haskell in whole is to give explicit definitions of all types used and in this respect this type extension in not on main way. CR record

Re[4]: the MPTC Dilemma (please solve)

Hello Manuel, Sunday, March 19, 2006, 7:25:44 PM, you wrote: i had a class which defines default reference type for monads: class Ref m r | m-r where to be exact, class Ref m r | m-r, r-m where newRef :: a - m (r a) readRef :: r a - m a writeRef :: r a - a - m () or even worser:

Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] STUArray

Hello Chris, Sunday, March 12, 2006, 2:05:09 PM, you wrote: CK Is GHC.PArr documented? it's perfectly documented in module sources itself :) you can also look at the ndpFlatten directory in ghc compiler's sources. i've successfully used them in my program, of course this makes program faster

Re[2]: darcs patch: add Data.Set.notMember and Data.Map.notMember

Hello Christian, Friday, March 10, 2006, 2:32:02 PM, you wrote: f x | not (x `Set.member` map) foo = ... is hard to read. btw, (x `not.Set.member` map), as proposed by Doaitse Swierstra, will look better in this case -- Best regards, Bulatmailto:[EMAIL

Re: small extension to `...` notation

Hello Doaitse, Thursday, March 9, 2006, 12:01:37 AM, you wrote: DS xs `zipWith (+)` ys i had the same desire several times Possibly `(expr)` ? it will be non-readable. it is better to just prohibit using of backquotes inside backquotes. and fixity can be fixed at 0, imho. at least, my

Re[2]: Keep the present Haskell record system!

Hello Claus, Monday, March 6, 2006, 4:30:04 PM, you wrote: my own opinion is that this scheme is like classes - they can be resolved at compile time in most real cases but noone do it because code will be too large. if some function can accept any records which has field 'a' then to use this

Re[2]: overlapping instances and constraints

Hello John, Tuesday, February 28, 2006, 4:23:24 AM, you wrote: i had plans to propose the same and even more: instance C2 a b | a/=b JM I was thinking it would be all kinds of useful if we had two predefined JM classes JM class Eq a b JM class NEq a b JM where Eq has instances exactly

Re[2]: overlapping instances and constraints

Hello Claus, Tuesday, February 28, 2006, 1:54:25 PM, you wrote: CR class NEq a b CR instance Fail a = NEq a a CR instance NEq a b i think that this definition just use ad-hoc overlapping instances resolution mechanism that we want to avoid :))) -- Best regards, Bulat

Re: public/private module sections (was: Haskell-prime Digest, Vol 2, Issue 58)

Hello Claus, Friday, February 24, 2006, 2:46:40 PM, you wrote: CR yes, this would add one constraint on where to place definitions. but CR grouping logically related definitions together is not quite what one CR might think anyway: aren't the definitions making up the interface CR most strongly

Re[2]: public/private module sections (was: Haskell-prime Digest, Vol 2, Issue 58)

Hello Claus, Friday, February 24, 2006, 6:55:51 PM, you wrote: CR not quite (though I believe that would be close to Simon M's idea). CR in my modification, both map and length would move completely CR into the export section WHY? it's not the interface. implementation of exported functions is

Re[2]: public/private module sections (was: Haskell-prime Digest, Vol 2, Issue 58)

Hello Claus, Friday, February 24, 2006, 7:53:09 PM, you wrote: CR public class C a CR where CR public m1 :: a CR private m2 :: a - String please don't stop on this! public map (private f) (public (private x:public xs)) = private (public f (private x)) `public :`

Re[2]: Module System

Hello Simon, Thursday, February 23, 2006, 2:21:22 PM, you wrote: SMghc --make My.Dotted.Module.hs Main.hs SM works fine. Similarly with GHCi. i don't known that. we should add this to faq SM It's only when GHC has to actually *find* a source file for a module SM that the hierarchical

Re[2]: Pragmas for FFI imports

Hello Simon, Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 12:53:09 PM, you wrote: SM simplicity, packages are the unit in several concepts: distribution, SM dependency, versioning, licensing, dynamic linking, include file SM dependencies, external library dependencies, and more. If we start SM confusing the

Re[2]: Array interface refactoring

Hello Ben, Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 9:47:19 PM, you wrote: BRG While we're on the topic, I have a couple of problems with the current array BRG system that cut deeper than the naming: BRG * The function for getting the bounds of an MArray is pure, so the BRGinterface can't

Re: runtime reflection for classes

Hello Johannes, Thursday, February 09, 2006, 1:43:38 PM, you wrote: JW With Data.Generics, we can get an object's type, constructor and fields. really, SYB way to metaprogramming is just to encode information about type in the datastructure. you can do somethiong in this fashion just by

Re[2]: runtime reflection for classes

Hello Johannes, Thursday, February 09, 2006, 2:43:49 PM, you wrote: again TH can be used and you will be limited only by the volume of information, available for TH code. JW Is information such as instance C t1 t2 .. available for such code? JW I guess not since this would require

  1   2   >