, all they do is add a tiny bit of
syntactic sugar to make programmer's lives a little bit easier - and
they're not even adding anything completely new, just extending
existing features.
/S
--
Sebastian Sylvan
+46(0)736-818655
UIN: 44640862
___
Haskell
On 3/20/06, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/19/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Loosely related to Ticket #76 (Bang Patterns) is the question of whether
we want the language to include strict tuples. It is related to bang
patterns, because its sole
On 3/20/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sebastian Sylvan:
On 3/19/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Loosely related to Ticket #76 (Bang Patterns) is the question of whether
we want the language to include strict tuples. It is related to bang
).
A likely coding practice would be to put short and simply defitions in
the public interface, but using the exporting feature for larger
functions (which need a significant amount of local helper functions
etc.).
/S
--
Sebastian Sylvan
+46(0)736-818655
UIN: 44640862
functions where public (whereas
private is implied -- or maybe not even allowing it to save a
keyword). But having to type one of public or private at each
function site would get really tedious...
/S
--
Sebastian Sylvan
+46(0)736-818655
UIN: 44640862
a problem very rarely, it could be noted in an
optimization faq somewhere. Plus, don't we already tell people to
add type signatures when something is too slow? Isn't that the first
thing you would try when something is surprisingly slow?
/S
--
Sebastian Sylvan
+46(0)736-818655
UIN: 44640862
nice
with e.g. type inference.
/S
--
Sebastian Sylvan
+46(0)736-818655
UIN: 44640862
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
