On 17/03/2014 13:08, Edward Kmett wrote:
Foo+rst.lhs does nicely dodge the collision with jhc.
How does ghc do the search now? By trying each alternative in turn?
Yes - see compiler/main/Finder.hs
Cheers,
Simon
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Merijn Verstraaten
mer...@inconsistent.nl
On 17/05/13 20:01, Ian Lynagh wrote:
I'd be in favour of allowing a trailing or leading comma anywhere that
comma is used as a separator. TupleSections would need to be changed or
removed, though.
The type constructors for tuples look like (,,,), so they would have to
be a special case. I'd
On 05/06/13 02:53, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Ian Lynagh i...@well-typed.com:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:15:58PM +1000, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
If a module contains an import of the form
import Prelude.XYZ
then it also automatically uses the NoImplicitPrelude language pragma.
On 28/05/13 17:08, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 08:58:29AM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote:
The likely practical result of this is that every module will now read:
module M where
#if MIN_VERSION_base(x,y,z)
import Prelude
#else
import Data.Num
import Control.Monad
...
#endif
for the
On 04/02/13 23:42, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 10:37:44PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about whether
f ! x y ! z = e
should mean the same; ie whether the space is significant. I think it's
probably more confusing if the space is
On 23/08/2012 17:09, Ramana Kumar wrote:
M is not the current module, in which case the only way that an
entity could be in scope in the current module is if it was exported
by M and subsequently imported by the current module, so adding
exported by module M is superfluous.
In
The primary argument is to not break something that works well for most
purposes, including teaching, at a huge cost of backwards compatibility
for marginal if any real benefits.
I'm persuaded by this argument. And I'm glad that teachers are speaking up in
this debate - it's hard to get a
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Christian Siefkes christ...@siefkes.net
wrote:
On 03/19/2012 04:53 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
I've been thinking about this question as well. How about
class IsString s where
unpackCString :: Ptr Word8 - CSize - s
What's the Ptr Word8 supposed to
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li wrote:
Hi Gaby,
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 06:29:24PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
OK, thanks! I guess a take away from this discussion is that what is
a punctuation is far less well defined than it appears...
I'm not
On 20/11/10 01:01, Ian Lynagh wrote:
I've made a couple of tickets for small fixes to the report:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/140
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/141
I wonder if we ought to have a more lightweight process for these kind
of
On 22/11/10 11:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Hi Iavor,
Thanks for your comments.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 06:25:38PM -0800, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
* Why is forall promoted to a keyword, rather then just being
special in types as is in all implementations? I like the current
status quo where forall
On 10/07/2010 22:02, John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 09:33:52AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 08/07/2010 09:45, John Meacham wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 07:09:29AM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
(ie as infix operators) and I have to squizzle around to re-interpret them
On 07/07/2010 18:03, Christian Maeder wrote:
Simon Marlow schrieb:
[...]
1. - 1 * 1 is accepted as legal pattern, but differently resolved for
expressions! Should one not reject these (rare) patterns, too?
That's the GHC bug, right?
Yes!
Just a meta point, but it would help me a great
On 06/07/2010 13:17, Christian Maeder wrote:
http://www.haskell.org/~simonmar/haskell-2010-draft-report-2/haskellch3.html
infixexp → lexp qop infixexp (infix operator application)
| - infixexp(prefix negation)
| lexp
This grammar rule describes a right
On 07/07/2010 15:56, Christian Maeder wrote:
Simon Marlow schrieb:
The string 1 * - 1 is legal as pattern, but rejected as expression!
Well, it's not a pattern (* is a varop, not a conop), and it's an
illegal funlhs (* has greater precedence than prefix -).
it is legal as funlhs (ghc-6.12.3
On 29/06/2010 23:31, Henk-Jan van Tuyl wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:01:54 +0200, Simon Marlow marlo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Comments on the draft report are welcome, before I finalise this and
sign off on Haskell 2010.
Subsection 12.3, Language extensions, mentions the FFI as a language
On 29/06/2010 16:38, malcolm.wallace wrote:
In Foreign.C.Error, the table of values of errno causes an unfortunate
page break, and it overflows the fresh page as well. (As in, some values
are invisible beyond the bottom of the page, rather than flowing onto
the next.)
Well spotted, thanks.
The second draft of the Haskell 2010 report is now available in PDF and
HTML formats (the PDF looks a lot nicer):
http://www.haskell.org/~simonmar/haskell-2010-draft-report-2.pdf
http://www.haskell.org/~simonmar/haskell-2010-draft-report-2/haskell.html
relative to the first draft, which was
On 30/04/2010 17:58, Sean Leather wrote:
I'd appreciate a few more eyes over this, in particular look out for
messed up typesetting as there could still be a few bugs lurking.
In the HTML version, there are a few cases where section numbers are
missing from the subsection headers in
On 01/05/2010 13:18, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 05:05:17PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I've completed most of the edits to the Haskell 98 report for Haskell
2010, modulo the changes to the libraries that we still have to resolve.
I cleaned up various other things I discovered
On 02/05/2010 13:57, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 05:05:17PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'd appreciate a few more eyes over this, in particular look out for
messed up typesetting as there could still be a few bugs lurking.
In the PDF:
p129-137: A program can only contain
On 01/05/10 20:17, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 08:05:58PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 01/05/10 17:16, Ian Lynagh wrote:
So it seems this is closer to option (2) in my message, because
portablebase and haskell2010 overlap, and are therefore mutually
exclusive, whereas in (4
On 01/05/10 17:16, Ian Lynagh wrote:
So it seems this is closer to option (2) in my message, because
portablebase and haskell2010 overlap, and are therefore mutually
exclusive, whereas in (4) haskell2010 and base2010 are non-overlapping -
that's the crucial difference.
If they are
On 30/04/10 23:52, Felipe Lessa wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 09:37:39PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I like the picture where we have a small base, lots of independent
packages, and one or more haskell20xx packages that re-exports all
the standardised stuff from the other packages
Hi Folks,
I'm editing the Haskell 2010 report right now, and trying to decide what
to do about the libraries. During the Haskell 2010 process the
committee agreed that the libraries in the report should be updated,
using the current hierarchical names, adding new functionality from the
On 30/04/10 13:19, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
4. Provide a haskell2010 package and a base2010 package that
re-exports all of base except the modules that overlap with
haskell2010. You can either use haskell2010,
haskell2010+base2010, or base. This is a bit like (1), but
avoids the need for shadowing
On 09/03/2010 12:11, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
And regarding guest's comments, doesn't the Haskell 2010 standard[1]
count as an actual language standard? If not, then what is it and
why isn't it one?
Haskell 2010 has been decided, but the Language Report itself has not
yet been published. So yes,
On 24/02/10 18:23, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 07:07:30PM -0800, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
I'd like to propose that we add record punning to Haskell 2011.
Thoughts, objections, suggestions?
I have a feeling I'm in the minority, but I find record punning an ugly
feature.
Given
a definition
without some syntactic issues. For example,
two = 1+1
four = 2 * two
but unfolding fails (four = 2 * 1 + 1). In general, we expect to have to
parenthesize things when unfolding them.
John
On Feb 13, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 09/02/10 21:43, S. Doaitse Swierstra wrote
On 10/02/10 07:53, Atze Dijkstra wrote:
On 10 Feb, 2010, at 00:53 , Lennart Augustsson wrote:
Do you deal with this correctly as well:
case () of _ - 1==1==True
No, that is, in the same way as GHC Hugs, by reporting an error.
Note that Haskell 2010 now specifies that expression to be a
On 09/02/10 21:43, S. Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
One we start discussing syntax again it might be a good occasion to
reformulate/make more precise a few points.
The following program is accepted by the Utrecht Haskell Compiler (here
we took great effort to follow the report closely ;-} instead of
text that I wrote for Haskell Prime here:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/Concurrency/DraftReportText
Cheers,
Simon
On 14/12/09 12:34, Simon Marlow wrote:
So that the Haskell 2011 cycle can get underway, we are soliciting
nominations for new committee members. Since
So that the Haskell 2011 cycle can get underway, we are soliciting
nominations for new committee members. Since this is the first time
we've done this, the procedure is still somewhat unsettled and things
may yet change, but the current guidelines are written down here:
This kind of discussion would be more appropriate on the haskell-cafe
mailing list. haskell-prime@haskell.org is specifically for discussing
proposals for changes in future revisions of the Haskell language.
Thanks.
Simon
On 30/11/2009 08:46, John D. Earle wrote:
I have used the expression
On 10/10/2009 18:59, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Hello,
well, I think that the fact that we seem to have a program context
that can distinguish f1 from f2 is worth discussing because I
would have thought that in a pure language they are interchangable.
The question is, does the context in Oleg's
On 11/10/2009 09:26, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Simon Marlow:
Oleg's example is quite close, don't you think?
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2009-March/021064.html
Ah yes, if you have two lazy input streams both referring to the same
underlying stream, that is enough
On 03/10/2009 19:59, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nicolas Pouillard:
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Wed Sep 16 22:17:08 +0200 2009:
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed
handle state for Haskell Prime?
(I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side
On 06/10/2009 14:18, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of Tue Oct 06 14:59:06 +0200 2009:
On 03/10/2009 19:59, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nicolas Pouillard:
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Wed Sep 16 22:17:08 +0200 2009:
Are there any plans to get rid of
On 16/09/2009 21:17, Florian Weimer wrote:
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed
handle state for Haskell Prime?
(I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side effects to pattern
matching, stricly speaking invalidating most of the transformations
which are
On 17/09/2009 13:58, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Wed Sep 16 22:17:08 +0200 2009:
Are there any plans to get rid of hGetContents and the semi-closed
handle state for Haskell Prime?
(I call hGetContents unsafe because it adds side effects to pattern
On 06/08/2009 17:42, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
What semantics would you like Haskell to have, in which (x `seq` y
`seq` e) and (y `seq` x `seq` e) are not equal?
I can easily imagine that (x `seq` y `seq` e) might have *two* semantic
denotations: bottom (Exception: stack overflow), and e. And I
On 06/08/2009 23:56, Peter Gammie wrote:
On 07/08/2009, at 12:00 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 06/08/2009 14:20, Peter Gammie wrote:
On 06/08/2009, at 10:59 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 06/08/2009 13:49, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 6 Aug 2009, at 14:37, Nils Anders Danielsson wrote:
On 2009-08-06
Dan Weston wrote:
foldl (+) 0 [1..1000] :: Integer
*** Exception: stack overflow
foldl' (+) 0 [1..1000] :: Integer
500500
I thought both of these were perfectly well defined in denotational
semantics (and equal to 500500). The first is
On 06/08/2009 14:20, Peter Gammie wrote:
On 06/08/2009, at 10:59 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 06/08/2009 13:49, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 6 Aug 2009, at 14:37, Nils Anders Danielsson wrote:
On 2009-08-06 11:08, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
yet, because of the definition of $!, this applies
On 06/08/2009 15:33, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
What semantics would you like Haskell to have, in which (x `seq` y
`seq` e) and (y `seq` x `seq` e) are not equal?
I can easily imagine that (x `seq` y `seq` e) might have *two* semantic
denotations: bottom (Exception: stack overflow), and e. And I
On 02/08/2009 22:38, Niklas Broberg wrote:
I updated the code on the wiki page: the previous version didn't handle
prefix negation - did you implement that yourself in HLint?
No, I didn't implement prefix negation in HLint - it never came up as
an issue. Perhaps the underlying HSE library
On 01/08/2009 12:58, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Personally I hate the fact that
f Z {x=3}
parses as
f (Z {a=3})
because even though (as Iavor says) there is only one function application
involved, it *looks* as if there are two.
Equally personally, I think that the presence or
I have fleshed out the report delta for
remove FixityResolution from the context-free grammar
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/FixityResolution
Please take a look and comment. This fixes a nasty bug in the Haskell
syntax - albeit one that doesn't cause problems in
On 31/07/2009 14:51, Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
remove FixityResolution from the context-free grammar
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/FixityResolution
Please take a look and comment. This fixes a nasty bug in the Haskell
syntax - albeit one that doesn't cause problems
On 25/07/2009 16:28, Ian Lynagh wrote:
I've made a ticket and proposal page for removing the monomorphism
restriction:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/131
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/NoMonomorphismRestriction
I think if we do this we really
On 25/07/2009 02:02, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Hi all,
I've made a ticket and proposal page for removing n+k patterns:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/130
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/NoNPlusKPatterns
Should I have also added it to some index page
On 14/07/2009 15:04, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 07:48:36AM +0100, Sittampalam, Ganesh 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)
On 15/07/2009 15:47, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
But there's a solution: we could remove the standard modules from
base, and have them only provided by haskell-std (since base will
just be a re-exporting layer on top of base-internals, this will be
easy to do). Most packages will then have
On 15/07/2009 15:54, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 03:39:55PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
But there's a solution: we could remove the standard modules from
base, and have them only provided by haskell-std (since base will just
be a re-exporting layer on top of base-internals
On 14/07/2009 08:58, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
left section right section prefix
unqualified (+ 1) (1 +) (+)
Haskell 98 (M.+ 1) (1 M.+) (M.+)
proposed (`M.(+)` 1) (1 `M.(+)`) M.(+)
or(*) (M.(+) 1) (flip M.(+) 1)
The last line is not correct. (M.(+) 1) captures the first argument of
the
On 12/07/2009 22:32, hask...@henning-thielemann.de wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, hask...@henning-thielemann.de wrote:
I like to note that I'm against this proposal. The example given in
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/QualifiedOperators
namely [Red..] can be easily resolved by
On 08/07/2009 22:45, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:09:29PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
1. Just drop the whole libraries section from the report. The
Report will still define the Prelude, however.
I'm tending towards (1), mainly because it provides a clean break
We still need owners for:
On 08/07/2009 10:07, Simon Marlow wrote:
Remove n+k patterns
NonDecreasingIndentation
Cheers,
Simon
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
On 08/07/2009 23:06, k...@cas.mcmaster.ca wrote:
Simon Marlow replied to Henning Thielemann:
Prelude.= just doesn't look like an infix operator. The point of
infix operators is that they are a lightweight notation, but they lose
that advantage when qualified. The qualified
On 09/07/2009 13:26, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Simon,
Thursday, July 9, 2009, 3:46:31 PM, you wrote:
This would be a bold step, in that we would be effectively standardising
a lot more libraries than the current language standard. The base
package is a fairly random bag of library
On 07/07/2009 16:40, Claus Reinke wrote:
At last year's Haskell Symposium, it was announced that we would
change the Haskell Prime process to make it less monolithic. ..
In the coming weeks we'll be refining proposals in preparation for
Haskell 2010.
Given the incremental nature of the new
On 07/07/2009 16:58, hask...@henning-thielemann.de wrote:
Adding to an old thread:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2008-April/002441.html
I like to note that I'm against this proposal. The example given in
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/QualifiedOperators
On 07/07/2009 20:17, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| There are a couple sensible removals here. Do we also want to get rid
| of the useless class contexts on data-declarations? (that look like
| data Ord a = Set a = Set ...)
Yes! Yes! Kill them.
(In GHC's source code these contexts are
This is more of a consistency issue than anything else. We have to
decide what to do with the libraries in the Report.
Right now, the Haskell Report specifies 15 library modules. Things like
Maybe, Char, IO, Time, and Random. The situation is not ideal, for many
reasons:
- There are a
At last year's Haskell Symposium, it was announced that we would change
the Haskell Prime process to make it less monolithic. Since then,
everyone has been busy using Haskell (or implementing it), and we
haven't made much progress on the standardisation side of things. Well,
with ICFP and
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Phil proposes that, although retaining the instances of Enum for Float
and Double, we simplify the definitions of the numericEnumFrom family:
numericEnumFromThenTo :: (Fractional a, Ord a) = a - a - a - [a]
numericEnumFrom = iterate (+1)
Wed Apr 30 09:49:57 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* reject CompositionAsDot
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080430164957-8214f-0b8497293fb762b3eca2f467db49f3fb13bf42d4.gz
Wed Apr 30 09:50:38 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* accept QualifiedOperators
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080430165038-8214f-81a70a53e326d741ecdd46e63c895397763f7d11.gz
Wed May 14 07:57:26 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Accepted: specify the static semantics of pattern bindings
M ./status.hs +5
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080514145726-12142-c9043f9e22b6eee2d15bdc00ae6a71c60aa5ac0c.gz
Wed May 14 08:12:34 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Accepted: remove the monomorphism restriction
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080514151234-12142-8883dd9b436af3208701e5dcd9b926e38391765c.gz
Wed May 14 08:12:12 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* separate the various monomorphism restriction proposals
M ./status.hs -1 +17
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080514151212-12142-28aa86fa87208d58913b72b0fdb6be38e61e9a62.gz
Wed May 14 08:13:16 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Reject: make variable and pattern bindings monomorphic by default
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080514151316-12142
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Lennart Augustsson:
So I still think changing $ is insane. Why change? If you want a new
operator, make a new one. Don't make a gratuitous change that will
waste countless man hours. For me it's a simple decision, if $
changes I cannot use Haskell'. :(
Claus Reinke wrote:
i originally filed this as a bug, until Simon PJ kindly pointed
me to the Haskell 98 report, which forces GHC to behave
this way.. i guess i'll remember this oddity for a while, so
i can live with it, but if it is irksome that the report allows
me to refer to a name that is
generalises over the type
variables in the type arising from its right-hand side.
Cheers,
Simon
It seems that under MBP the second program is not equivalent to the
first because it is more polymorphic.
-Iavor
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks
Wed Apr 23 09:47:02 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* wiki link for the $ issue
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080423164702-8214f-f38f4a62db63708da38c8cabdb65bc8af8aea58c.gz
Dan Doel wrote:
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:
Thanks, I've
Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 21:02 -0400, Dan Doel wrote:
3) Left associative ($) is consistent with left associative ($!). The right
associative version of the latter is inconvenient, because it only allows
things to be (easily) strictly applied to the last argument of a
Johan Tibell wrote:
An interesting question. What is the goal of Haskell'? Is it to, like
Python 3000, fix warts in the language in an (somewhat) incompatible
way or is it to just standardize current practice? I think we need
both, I just don't know which of the two Haskell' is.
The stated
Tue Apr 22 15:53:31 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* add Make $ left associative, like application
M ./status.hs +5
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/2008045331-8214f-8c2b7ec4a7666bfaa70b2514290172981bdebb50.gz
Chris Smith wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:53:39 -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
Tue Apr 22 15:53:31 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* add Make $ left associative, like application
Is there a justification for this somewhere?
I'm hoping someone will supply some. There seemed
Those on the Haskell' mailing list may have seen recent signs of
activity on the Haskell' front. I thought I should clarify the current
status, and update the community on our plans for Haskell'.
The main sticking point in the design of Haskell' has been the type
system: namely whether Haskell'
Simon Marlow wrote:
Subject: DRAFT: Haskell' status update
of course, that shouldn't have said DRAFT.
Cheers,
Simon
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Mon Apr 21 11:30:40 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* add wiki link for ArrayIndexing
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080421183040-8214f-02ff20c870f45e474bf91dc581b45e3a20e6bea7.gz
John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 08:36:42AM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Not allowing infix functions on the LHS would be a notable
simplification. Constructors in patterns should still be infix of
course: f (a :=: b) = ...
I don't know, I think this will confuse things,
Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
Incedentally I think we should use a different operator for array
indexing, because ! is almost universally used to mean strict
now: in bang patterns, strict datatype fields, and $!. See
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/ArrayIndexing
A lot of
Jacques Carette wrote:
I tried to see the discussion that led to class aliases being rejected
as a proposal, but could not find links on the Wiki. In fact, in Trac
(#101) that proposal is still a 'maybe', but with no updates. Is there
a competing proposal that got accepted?
[Without a
and implementation.
Cheers,
Simon
Dan
Simon Marlow wrote:
Folks,
Please comment on the following proposed change to qualified operator
syntax:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/QualifiedOperators
Cheers,
Simon
Wed Apr 16 10:25:08 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* add QualifiedOperators proposal
M ./status.hs +5
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080416172508-8214f-1d31cbfdec2e09db90231720fa5d207f4efa1126.gz
Wed Apr 16 10:26:16 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* typo
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080416172616-8214f-9e6f613425fd3199fbd2ff9acbb67be188734af7.gz
___
Haskell
Tue Apr 15 10:50:54 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* add DerivingInstances
M ./status.hs +2
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080415175054-8214f-b951f87924270aa36c2af9110f025a6caebe0d62.gz
Tue Apr 15 10:55:30 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* reject caseless Underscore
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080415175530-8214f-7a0e97f3952cddee8178c5929ae2869abb22c060.gz
Tue Apr 15 11:10:10 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* TypeSynonymInstances: probably accept == undecided
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080415181010-8214f-eb96ed362e394a7ec5ca2d0b2849bc331d7a3b8c.gz
Tue Apr 15 11:10:51 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* NondecreasingIndentation: probably accept == accept
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080415181051-8214f-b71764fa8771790d94565efcac663d7c17356ade.gz
Tue Apr 15 11:11:16 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* QualifiedIdentifiers: probably accept == undecided
M ./status.hs -2 +3
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080415181116-8214f-61de042c56edab3210e49e968d9e88a24961ef1f.gz
Tue Apr 15 11:12:08 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* BangPatterns: probably accept == undecided
M ./status.hs -2 +3
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080415181208-8214f-5e1ae9e40a9feb2afbd077b0e2f623dc0bdbd02f.gz
Tue Apr 15 11:12:27 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* NewtypeDeriving: probably accept == undecided
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080415181227-8214f-d75f6774183661274c106aded5c7a4a2d9b96cd8.gz
Tue Apr 15 11:12:42 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* improve [wiki:Defaulting] rules: probably accept == undecided
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080415181242-8214f-9565b50d490a06fd126df3ec64a5a4984c4fcb6c.gz
Tue Apr 15 11:12:55 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* KindAnnotations: probably accept == accept
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080415181255-8214f-823a0b473064b7ce419f9c7418f8e9fceafa38cd.gz
Tue Apr 15 11:13:11 PDT 2008 Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* MonomorphicPatternBindings: probably accept == undecided
M ./status.hs -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-status/_darcs/patches/20080415181311-8214f-618ae9b32fb53764506ae5552248468ba24907cf.gz
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
