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 c
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. Bu
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
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
>
| So it looks like we're stuck at pretty much the same proposals for the
| class system.
...
| More generally, our discussion about the class system seems to be
| stalled. How should we to come to a decision?
I summarise my view of the state of play in the message below, which I
see I did not circ
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 (tupl
>> - 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 stre
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
john:
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:19:18AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > >Especially since even:
> > >
> > >checking Haskell type for intmax_t... not supported
> > >checking Haskell type for uintmax_t... not supported
> > >
> > >aren't universal :)
> >
> > Well, yes. Any suggestions for
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:19:18AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> >Especially since even:
> >
> >checking Haskell type for intmax_t... not supported
> >checking Haskell type for uintmax_t... not supported
> >
> >aren't universal :)
>
> Well, yes. Any suggestions for what to do here? Make a
simonmar:
> On 12 May 2006 00:47, John Meacham wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 02:57:30PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> >> On the other hand, keeping intermediate Doubles to 80-bit precision
> >> is both (a) non-portable and (b) unpredictable (the programmer
> >> doesn't know which intermediat
On 12 May 2006 00:47, John Meacham wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 02:57:30PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> On the other hand, keeping intermediate Doubles to 80-bit precision
>> is both (a) non-portable and (b) unpredictable (the programmer
>> doesn't know which intermediates are going to be sto
12 matches
Mail list logo
