Re: type (++) = (<>)

hout map or (++) hanging about? > Sure. But the hate mail levels in my inbox would skyrocket commensurately. > ;) > > -Edward > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo <mle...@mega-nerd.com> > wrote: > >> Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev wrote: >> >

type (++) = (<>)

Hello! What do you think of making (++) the same as (<>) so we could use ++ as concatenation of any monoid, not just lists in Haskell 2020? This will be more intuitive for beginners, too. Best regards, Vassil Keremidchiev ___ Haskell-prime mailing list

Re: Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

It's just helping clean up a bit words that doesn't have much meaning. Currently GHCi in GHC 8 is supporting this, so you could write both: x = 10 x <- return 10 Which is great! 2017-04-17 17:03 GMT+03:00 Sven Panne : > 2017-04-17 14:19 GMT+02:00 Adam Bergmark

Re: Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

They are confused about when one should put "let x = ..." or "x <- ..." mostly before they learn what is monad. 2017-04-16 21:15 GMT+03:00 Francesco Ariis <fa...@ariis.it>: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 08:21:43PM +0300, Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev > wrote: &

Re: Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

00 Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev <var...@gmail.com> > : > >> 1) It's not a problem, it's a improvement in syntax with lowering >> verbosity. >> > > If it's not a real problem, it probably shouldn't be done: Every tiny > change in the syntax, even if it's

Haskell 2020: 'let' to be optional and with wider scope of visibility, like other Haskell functions

Hello! A small proposition for the next standard. 1) It is to lower verbosity with omitting 'let' keyword in do-notation and use only (=) for describing let/pure blocks. Example: currently: main = do let x = expression1... let y = expression2... z <- action1 putStrLn (x ++ y

Re: Multiple imports on a single line

So it's O(N) -> O(1) where N is a number of lines/imports. But you're right for the readiness. I'm convinced! 2017-02-02 16:52 GMT+02:00 Doug McIlroy : > > I often see a confusion between greater expresiveness (good goal) and > > having to type less (largely irrelevant

Re: Multiple imports on a single line

a.Text; import Data.Foldable; import Control.Concurrent > > Whether it is good style is another matter, but all compilers will > certainly accept it. > > Regards, > Malcolm > > > On 1 Feb 2017, at 14:18, Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev wrote: > > Hello! > > What do you thin

Multiple imports on a single line

Hello! What do you think about an idea to have multiple imports on a single line, like: module MyApp where import Data.Text, Data.Foldable, Control.Concurrent ... That way we could write more concise and short code as Haskell promises. This will be useful for small programs like scripts, small