Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
= Partial p i b | p i - b where ... -- (*)
I think it's fine. The p i b on the left is effectively a tuple also.
The problem is that Partial p i b is application, while p i is not.
Also, p i (on the right) denotes a set, not a tuple.
I think this syntax is
Stephanie wrote:
Simon,
Why is an Appendix is better than just a footnote in the Standard that
says we aren't sure, one way or the other, whether FDs will stay in
the language for ever. Why do we need this extra structure?
I'm worried that this extra structure could be confusing. In
John Hughes:
Haskell' should define a standard language for use TODAY--and it
should be 100% clear what that language is, with no pussy-footing
around difficult choices. In my view it should include FDs. Then in
the future they may be replaced--but it should then be clear that this
IS a
On 2006-05-13, Manuel M T Chakravarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephanie Weirich:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
My suggestion is this:
* Specify MPTCs in the main language
* Specify FDs in an Appendix (with some reasonably conservative
interpretation of FDs).
* A Haskell'
Stephanie Weirich:
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
My suggestion is this:
* Specify MPTCs in the main language
* Specify FDs in an Appendix (with some reasonably conservative
interpretation of FDs).
* A Haskell' implementation should implement the Appendix, and
programmers
Hello Stephanie,
Thursday, May 11, 2006, 5:45:15 PM, you wrote:
- We're already in that state. There *is* a lot of Haskell code that
uses FDs, it's just not Haskell 98 code. Whenever ATs take over, we'll
still have to deal with this code.
are you sure about *lots* ? i seen only 3-4 ones
- We're already in that state. There *is* a lot of Haskell code that
uses FDs, it's just not Haskell 98 code. Whenever ATs take over, we'll
still have to deal with this code.
are you sure about *lots* ? i seen only 3-4 ones (monad transformers,
collections, may be arrays, my streams) and
Hello Johannes,
Friday, May 12, 2006, 4:18:29 PM, you wrote:
= Partial p i b | p i - b where ... -- (*)
(*) A funny visual aspect of FDs is the absurd syntax.
On the left of |, the whitespace is (type arg) application,
but on the right, it suddenly denotes sequencing (tupling)
i
: Martin Sulzmann; Stephanie Weirich; Ross Paterson; isaac jones;
Ravi Nanavati; Andres Loeh;
| John Launchbury; Simon Peyton-Jones
| Subject: RE: Class System current status
|
| | I don't think I ever argued that we put ATs in Haskell'. I am
arguing
| | that we should not put FDs in.
|
| I think
Hello Simon,
Friday, May 12, 2006, 8:05:25 PM, you wrote:
My suggestion is this:
* Specify MPTCs in the main language
* Specify FDs in an Appendix (with some reasonably conservative
interpretation of FDs).
* A Haskell' implementation should implement the Appendix, and
Johannes Waldmann wrote:
class ( Show p, ToDoc i, Reader b, ToDoc b, Measure p i b )
= Partial p i b | p i - b where ... -- (*)
(*) A funny visual aspect of FDs is the absurd syntax.
On the left of |, the whitespace is (type arg) application,
but on the right, it suddenly denotes
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
My suggestion is this:
* Specify MPTCs in the main language
* Specify FDs in an Appendix (with some reasonably conservative
interpretation of FDs).
* A Haskell' implementation should implement the Appendix, and
programmers can write programs against it.
Hi all,
Stephanie wrote:
Simon,
Why is an Appendix is better than just a footnote in the Standard that
says we aren't sure, one way or the other, whether FDs will stay in
the language for ever. Why do we need this extra structure?
I'm worried that this extra structure could be
So it looks like we're stuck at pretty much the same proposals for the
class system.
a) standardize on MPTC and FDs using rules from CHR paper.
b) don't standardize anything, and wait for ATs to take over
c) punt---standardize the library and exact form of FD for that library,
but no more, or
On 5/11/06, Stephanie Weirich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) standardize on MPTC and FDs using rules from CHR paper.
- We're already in that state. There *is* a lot of Haskell code that
uses FDs, it's just not Haskell 98 code. Whenever ATs take over, we'll
still have to deal with this code.
15 matches
Mail list logo
