On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Ian Lynagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
data Fin a = FinCons a !(Fin a) | FinNil
w = let q = FinCons 3 q
in case q of
FinCons i _ - i
is w 3 or _|_?
Knowing that opinions seem to be heavily stacked against my
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 17:32, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
On Nov 7, 2006, at 11:47 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'd support fractional and negative fixity. It's a simple change to
make, but we also have to adopt
On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:00 PM, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Hello,
I never liked the decision to rename 'map' to 'fmap', because it
introduces two different names for the same thing (and I find the name
`fmap' awkward).
As far as I understand, this was done to make it easier to learn
Haskell, by
On Tuesday 11 April 2006 01:09 pm, isaac jones wrote:
I'd like to ask the list to postpone discussion on exceptions and
deepSeq until a later iteration. While these are two topics that are of
deep importance to me, I would prefer to focus on the other two topics
at hand until they are solved.
On Mar 29, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Andy Gill wrote:
John, et. al.,
I'd rather just use a polymorphic function, but would having some
sort of ... notation in class contexts help?
sort (Eq a,_) = [a] - [a]
Which means that we need at least the Eq a, but perhaps more.
See #86
On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Robert Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i would argue against treating tuples as pure syntactic sugar for
nested pairs; since the nesting carries hierarchical information, i
would expect (x,y,z) used in place of (x,(y,z)) to cause an error
On Feb 7, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:Hello Robert,Tuesday, February 07, 2006, 6:42:41 PM, you wrote: More disturbing is the complete inability to write general functionsover tuples. RD As I understand it, you still have to write down the instance RD declarations when using
, Robert Dockins wrote:
On Feb 4, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Pablo Barenbaum wrote:
An awkwardness in Haskell I would like to see solved in
Haskell', is the fact that the behavior of tuple-like
constructors must be either built-in or limited.
One thing I recall seeing on haskell-cafe some time back
On Feb 6, 2006, at 7:49 PM, John Meacham wrote:
A much bigger problem is that treating n-tuples as nested 2-tuples
doesn't actually let you treat them generically, which was the
point of
the proposed transformation.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
imagine you want to replace all the
On Feb 4, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Pablo Barenbaum wrote:
An awkwardness in Haskell I would like to see solved in
Haskell', is the fact that the behavior of tuple-like
constructors must be either built-in or limited.
One thing I recall seeing on haskell-cafe some time back was the
notion that an
Somewhat apropos. The following recent post on LtU links to some
slides by Tim Sweeney (Epic Games) wherein he discusses things he
does and doesn't like about Haskell.
Notable points:
== Positive on ST (implies need for rank 2 types)
== Positive on Concurrency and STM
== Positive on
On Feb 1, 2006, at 5:12 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/31/06, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been swayed by the arguments put forward by the ~-
proponents, so
I'm not going to champion the removal of ~ any more.
We must find *something* to
One aspect of this discussion I've yet to see that I think is
important is, how do the various proposals for removal/modifications
of M-R impact implicit parameters? Are implicit parameters likely to
be in Haskell'? It seems like the proposal to default to polymorphic
binding and have
13 matches
Mail list logo
