Am Montag, 28. April 2008 06:29 schrieben Sie:
Wolfgang Jeltsch:
Am Donnerstag, 24. April 2008 05:13 schrieb Manuel M T Chakravarty:
[…]
Hence, anything that is *important* to change, we should change now.
Although I can follow your arguments, I thought that the large and
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'. :(
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I suggest we reject the proposal, and move any further discussion to
haskell-cafe. Ok?
Sounds good to me.
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
Sittampalam, Ganesh:
Manuel Chakravarty wrote:
We should be careful about where we break existing code, and
we should try to support automatic translation of H98 to H' code,
but any changes that we do not make now will become even more
difficult in the future when there is even more Haskell
Haskell has now reached the point where backwards compatibility is something
that must be taken very seriously.
The motivation behind Haskell' was to bring the most common extensions into
the standard, it was all going to be done in a year.
Haskell' is not a new language, but growing Haskell98
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* add Make $ left associative, like application
I'm an end user of Haskell rather than an FP researcher, and I'm very
strongly against this change because I don't think of $ as being
function application; I think of it as the brackets from here to the
Manuel Chakravarty wrote:
Care for legacy code is important, but H' will have to break
backwards compatibility in some places. And especially where
you already rely on GHC extensions, you can't really expect
that H' will adopt features that have been available as GHC
extensions in
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Manuel M T Chakravarty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We should be careful about where we break existing code, and we should try to
support automatic translation of H98 to H' code, but any changes that we do
not make now will become even more difficult in the future
Am Mittwoch, 23. April 2008 01:20 schrieb Duncan Coutts:
[…]
Surely there was a justification to having $ be the opposite
associativity from application and not just a different precedence. Does
anyone know what it was?
Probably the fact that you can write
f $ g $ h $ u $ v $ w $ x
Am Mittwoch, 23. April 2008 09:58 schrieb Bulat Ziganshin:
[…]
my main point is that considering space-less operators as having
larger priority is our natural habit.
Really??? I‘ve never heard of people using spaceless operators for stating
precedence before. And it contradicts nice
Am Mittwoch, 23. April 2008 10:06 schrieb Cale Gibbard:
[…]
I believe that migrating code will be quite a task regardless of the
outcome here, but at least for the packages that are in Hackage, the
system helpfully reports build failures, so we'll know where the
breakages are, and roughly
Am Donnerstag, 24. April 2008 00:43 schrieb Ian Lynagh:
[…]
Please see
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions
f $$ x = f x
Note that this clashes with Text.PrettyPrint
I also doesn’t correspond to $!. We should introduce $$! then.
[…]
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
Am Donnerstag, 24. April 2008 09:30 schrieb Lennart Augustsson:
Haskell has now reached the point where backwards compatibility is something
that must be taken very seriously.
Would you be opposed to a Haskell 2 which would break lots of things?
[…]
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:38:22PM +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 24. April 2008 00:43 schrieb Ian Lynagh:
[…]
Please see
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions
f $$ x = f x
Note that this clashes with Text.PrettyPrint
I also doesn’t correspond
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 24. April 2008 09:30 schrieb Lennart Augustsson:
Haskell has now reached the point where backwards compatibility is something
that must be taken very seriously.
Would you be opposed to a Haskell 2
Haskell 2 (whatever it is), does not have the goals that were stated for
Haskell', so I can accept disruptive changes.
Haskell' has (had?) some very clear goals, and breaking every existing
program was not one of them.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Wolfgang Jeltsch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Niklas Broberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm very suspicious about the power/weight ratio of this change.
Normally, for simple value-level stuff like this, provide both options:
mapM / forM. = =
So how about, rather than break things, just
but it also seems not to make much sense to standardise
a Prelude which people strongly want to change.
I'm strongly against this change, both on its own merits
- in most cases when there is a real argument being passed, I find
chains of $s easier to think about than your alternative -
but
2008/4/23 Sittampalam, Ganesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
but it also seems not to make much sense to standardise
a Prelude which people strongly want to change.
I'm strongly against this change, both on its own merits
- in most cases when there is a real argument being passed, I find
chains of
Hi
How would you propose supporting multiple preludes at once?
Unhappy. The Haskell Prelude is more than just a standard library.
Things like $, ., otherwise, = etc would be keywords in any other
language. As such, you expect their meaning to be consistent.
If you let other people define
I believe that migrating code will be quite a task
regardless of the outcome here,
NonDecreasing indentation and the removal of n+k patterns are
the only accepted proposals I can see that might affect existing
code. The former is already standard practice and the latter
is unlikely to be that
On Wednesday 23 April 2008, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Dan,
Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 1:42:20 PM, you wrote:
This wouldn't work, you'd have to rewrite it as:
withSomeResource foo .
withSomeOtherThing bar .
yetAnotherBlockStructured thing $ ...
it is very
Dan Doel wrote:
3) Left associative ($) is consistent with left associative ($!).
(f $! x) y z
((f $! x) $! y) $! z
Left associative, these are:
f $! x $ y $ z
f $! x $! y $! z
Nice! Subconsciously, the fact that ($!) is currently not left
associative has always bitten me.
2008/4/23 apfelmus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Dan Doel wrote:
Note that setting (.) or ($) = fmap subsumes function application, because
we have
fmap :: (a - b) - a - b
for the /identity functor/. In other words, the current ($) and (.) are
just special cases of the general fmap .
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
When I first saw this thread, my gut response was Aw gawds no, don't
touch my $ !! I love $, I use it all the time, it really helps making
code more readable and more nicely structured. I would really hate for
someone to take that away from me.
So when I came across this:
This wouldn't work,
On 2008-04-23, Sittampalam, Ganesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's plenty of code out there that doesn't have the benefit
of a vigilant user community ready to spring into action. For
example, Credit Suisse has several tens of thousands of lines of
code written by internal users who are not
On Wednesday 23 April 2008, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
it's not refactoring! it's just adding more features - exception
handler, progress indicator, memory pool and so on. actually, code
blocks used as a sort of RAII for Haskell. are you wanna change all
those ';' when you add new variable to your
Hi
I think it is reasonable to look closely at the motivations for
wanting to retain the $ as is. Looking through this thread, I can find
only a single complaint raised (albeit an important one), namely
backwards compatibility. Yes, such a change would likely break quite a
few my
2008/4/23 Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We also should remember that a large number of academic papers are
written in Haskell, and unlike libraries, don't get update releases
made. This is not a minor tweak - it will break a massive number of
programs.
How many research papers have you
ndmitchell:
Hi
I think it is reasonable to look closely at the motivations for
wanting to retain the $ as is. Looking through this thread, I can find
only a single complaint raised (albeit an important one), namely
backwards compatibility. Yes, such a change would likely break quite
I'm very suspicious about the power/weight ratio of this change.
Normally, for simple value-level stuff like this, provide both options:
mapM / forM. = =
So how about, rather than break things, just provide an alternative to ($).
Alright, I'm not sure what the proper channel for doing
I think there are some very valid concerns about this proposal, but
just to add a small datapoint -- the associativity of $ was somewhat
painful and counterintuitive to me when I was first learning Haskell,
and the associativity of $! doubly so.
Code breakage issues aside, this seems very
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:21:26AM +0200, Niklas Broberg wrote:
I'm very suspicious about the power/weight ratio of this change.
Normally, for simple value-level stuff like this, provide both options:
mapM / forM. = =
So how about, rather than break things, just provide an
Niklas Broberg wrote:
...
It should be said though that changing the associativity of $ doesn't
make all code nice and clean. Consider for instance
f (g (h x)) (k y)
We could change that into one of
f $ g (h x) $ k y
f (g $ h x) $ k y
If $ is left-associative, then
f (g (h x)) (k
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 09:52:11AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
The problem with this is that
f !x y
would associate differently in an expression than it does on the left hand
side of an equation, where ! is the prefix bang-pattern operator. To make
this consistent we'd have to make ! a
John Meacham wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 09:52:11AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
The problem with this is that
f !x y
would associate differently in an expression than it does on the left hand
side of an equation, where ! is the prefix bang-pattern operator. To make
this consistent we'd
Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2008-04-23, Sittampalam, Ganesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's plenty of code out there that doesn't have the benefit of a
vigilant user community ready to spring into action. For example,
Credit Suisse has several tens of thousands of lines of code written
by
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:43:36 +0100, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
Is there not a general expectation when a new language standard comes
out that
people will migrate to it (perhaps over time)?
I would hope so. There's no chance that Haskell 98 would continue to be
maintained with bug fixes and
Lennart Augustsson:
I my opinion, anyone who suggest changing the associativity of $ is
insane.
Or just hating every Haskell user. Changing $ would make virtually
every Haskell program uncompilable.
Just pick some other (Unicode?) operator, but leave $ alone.
I agree that the
Sittampalam, Ganesh:
Aaron Denney wrote:
On 2008-04-23, Sittampalam, Ganesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's plenty of code out there that doesn't have the benefit of a
vigilant user community ready to spring into action. For example,
Credit Suisse has several tens of thousands of lines of
marlowsd:
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
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 to be
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:
1) Anything of the form:
f
On 2008-04-22, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Smith wrote:
I know it would break
nearly every single piece of Haskell code I've ever written. As such,
I'm biased toward thinking it's an extremely bad idea.
Absolutely. Given that, we'd need a *very* good reason to make the
46 matches
Mail list logo
