not because of the technical decisions that are
> being made, but because of the process by which they are being made.
> That concern is what drove my proposals. It is perfectly valid to think
> that that loss was the inevitable price of progress, but that is not my
> view.
>
> Cheers,
Hello,
I'm Dan Doel. I'm on the core libraries committee (though I'm speaking
only for myself). As I recall, one of the reasons I got tapped for it
was due to my having some historical knowledge about Haskell; not
because I was there, but because I've gone back and looked at some old
reports
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Andreas Abel andreas.a...@ifi.lmu.dewrote:
Another instance (cut-down) are let-guards like
let Just x | x 0 = e in x
The x 0 is understood as an assertion here, documenting an invariant.
However, Haskell reads this as
let Just x = case () of { () |
This is a significant problem for even some of the more ubiquitous
extensions. For instance, there are multiple compilers that implement
RankNTypes, but I would not be surprised at all if programs using that
extension were not portable across implementations (they're not really even
portable
MPTCs alone that would be a problem, though.
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Gábor Lehel illiss...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Dan Doel dan.d...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a significant problem for even some of the more ubiquitous
extensions. For instance, there are multiple
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
Wait. What about
instance C [a] [b]
? Should that be accepted? The Coverage Condition says no, and indeed it
is rejected. But if you add -XUndecidableInstances it is accepted.
This 'clearly' violates
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Andrea Vezzosi sanzhi...@gmail.com wrote:
class C a b | a - b
instance C a R
instance C T U
Are you sure that worked before?
80%
The following still does anyhow:
data R
data T
data U
class C a b | a - b
instance TypeCast R b =
Sorry about the double send, David. I forgot to switch to reply-all in
the gmail interface.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM,
dm-list-haskell-pr...@scs.stanford.edu wrote:
You absolutely still can use FunctionalDependencies to determine type
equality in GHC 7. For example, I just verified the
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:19 PM,
dm-list-haskell-pr...@scs.stanford.edu wrote:
No, these are not equivalent. The first one TypeEq a b c is just
declaring an instance that works forall c. The second is declaring
multiple instances, which, if there were class methods, could have
different
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Ben Millwood hask...@benmachine.co.uk wrote:
It would seem very strange to me if haskell-prime made the choice of
fundeps/type families based on the behaviour with
OverlappingInstances. I'm under the impression that Overlapping is
generally considered one of
On Tuesday 04 January 2011 5:24:21 am o...@okmij.org wrote:
Method A: just define bind as usual
instance (Functor (Iteratee el m),Monad m) = Monad (Iteratee el m) where
return = IE_done
IE_done a = f = f a
IE_cont e k = f = IE_cont e (\s - k s = docase)
On Monday 08 February 2010 11:18:07 am Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I think that Hugs is right here. After all, there is no ambiguity in any
of these expressions. And an application-domain user found this behaviour
very surprising.
I think it's clear what one would expect the result of these
On Thursday 24 April 2008, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
I don’t think that this is reasonable. (.) corresponds to the little
circle in math which is a composition. So (.) = () would be far better.
Were I building a library, this might be the direction I'd take things.
They're two incompatible
On Wednesday 23 April 2008, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Dan,
Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 1:42:20 PM, you wrote:
This wouldn't work, you'd have to rewrite it as:
withSomeResource foo .
withSomeOtherThing bar .
yetAnotherBlockStructured thing $ ...
it is very
On Wednesday 23 April 2008, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
it's not refactoring! it's just adding more features - exception
handler, progress indicator, memory pool and so on. actually, code
blocks used as a sort of RAII for Haskell. are you wanna change all
those ';' when you add new variable to your
On Wednesday 23 April 2008, Chris Smith wrote:
I don't think I agree that fail in the Monad typeclass is a good example
here, or necessarily that there is a good example.
We should remember that there is a cohesive community of Haskell
programmers; not a bunch of unrelated individuals who
On Tuesday 22 April 2008, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'm hoping someone will supply some. There seemed to be strong opinion
on #haskell that this change should be made, but it might just have been
a very vocal minority.
These are the arguments off the top of my head:
1) Anything of the form:
f
17 matches
Mail list logo
