On 1/24/07, Brian Hulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A possible syntax could represent the
value being matched explicitly, say using ? to represent the value
currently
being matched, then the pattern could be written as an equation:
f (prodSize ? = Small) = ...
f (prodSize ? = Medium) =
On 4/11/06, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > deriving (Show Foo)
>
> I'm all for that. A modest but useful gain. All we need is the syntax,
> and that is something that Haskell Prime might usefully define.
Speaking of which, how about simply qualifying a body-less instance
with
http://haskell.galois.com/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/FlexiblePartialApplication
On 3/7/06, Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> there was some proposal for introducing a special syntax where f x _ z or
> f x ? z means \y -> f x y z. Is there some information on the Ha
On 2/16/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> class EqL1 a c | a -> c
> instance EqL1 L1 HTrue
> instance EqL1 L2 HFalse
>
> class EqL2 a c | a -> c
> instance EqL2 L1 HFalse
> instance EqL2 L2 HTrue
[...]
Doesn't this spell quadratic blow-up on the number of labels in scope?
I
I'll second that.
I'll just throw in that not all pragmas ({-# ... #-}) are really
annotations, because they do not necessarily pertain to one particular
entity each. Some could be attached -- e.g. DEPRECATED, INLINE /
NOINLINE, SPECIALIZE. Others, however, couldn't -- say, rewrite rules
-- and
On 1/27/06, Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 27. Januar 2006 12:15 schrieb Dinko Tenev:
> > [...]
>
> > About the whole extension, (f x _ z) is arguably clearer than \y -> f
> > x y z,
>
> For me, it's really not clearer.
On 1/26/06, Aaron Denney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-01-26, Dinko Tenev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/26/06, Conor McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> We'd do daft stuff like
> >>
> >> (200 * _ ^ 2)
On 1/26/06, Conor McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> We'd do daft stuff like
>
> (200 * _ ^ 2) unitsquare
Yes, I played with a concept like that at one point, and came to the
conclusion that it was better done with lambdas. I am all
specifically about function application, not arbitrary
On 1/26/06, John Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd be against this--its semantics isn't clear enough to me. For example,
> I usually assume id e = e, for any e, but
>
> id (f _ x) y = id (\y->f y x) y = f y x
> /=
> f _ x y = \z -> f z x y
>
> Or would (f _ x) y and f _ x y mayb
On 1/25/06, Jeffrey Yasskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's a neat feature, but:
>
> Using _ seems to conflict with a Jhc extension in which "Using
> underscore in an expression expands to bottom with an error message
> giving the current file and line number."
> http://repetae.net/john/c
I created a feature request for this while GHC was still on SF, it has
propagated to trac and can be seen here:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/315
Cheers,
Dinko
On 1/23/06, Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are there any subtle reasons for why something like the followin
11 matches
Mail list logo
