| > In my opinion, views are going to make more Haskell more complicated, and
| > from what I have seen so far, for little gain.
|
| We need some kind of pattern extension *now* for bytestring
| matching/views and bit parsing, though. Stuff that's used in large, real
| world Haskell programs :)
Wo
isaac jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/57
>
> Does anyone have any feedback on this work?
Yes, here are my thoughts.
> PROPOSAL: adopt GHC's convention and treat 'forall' specially in types
> but allow it to be used in value declarations.
Hello,
On 1/26/07, Malcolm Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ scheme = 'forall' tvars '.' opt_ctxt type ]
> The non-terminal 'tvars' is a sequence of type variables that are
> separated by blank spaces. We have a choice if we should allow empty
> quantifier sequences.
> PROPOSAL: be liberal
2) There are other reasons why I want to use Haskell-98 and would
like to be able to use other compilers. Thus, I'd want a pattern-binder
preprocessor (extending GHC is not as important to me).
I see. though I'd hope that as long as we keep our extensions simple and
general enough, the othe
On 1/24/07, John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am having a hard time figuring out what views gain you, if anything.
If you know from the start you want abstract deconstructors, then you
can do that now and it has never been an issue, just mechanical and
verbose:
> date Term = Ap Term Ter
