Hello Johannes,
Friday, January 27, 2006, 1:00:42 PM, you wrote:
JW let instance Ord Item where ...
JW xs :: [ Item ] ; xs = ...
JW in sort xs
are you familiar with generic haskell? one of its features is the
local definitions of the special cases for generic functions, what is
close to
Hello John,
Wednesday, February 01, 2006, 6:48:48 AM, you wrote:
On the other hand, if pattern bindings were strict by default, I bet
there would be a lot fewer accidental space leaks.
JM I don't think this is true. I think there would just be a whole lot of a
JM different type of space leak.
Hello Simon,
Tuesday, January 31, 2006, 1:31:26 PM, you wrote:
SM We must find *something* to throw away though! :-)
newspeak is the only language whose dictionary is decreasing (c) 1984
:)
at least from library we should throw many things, including old
exceptions, data.array and of course
Hello Manuel,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 3:40:26 AM, you wrote:
MMTC I am against such a change. The change would break existing software
MMTC (eg, Yampa) and secondly I don't buy the main sources of
MMTC confusion for beginners argument. The confusion arises only when a
MMTC single line
Hello John,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 4:24:06 AM, you wrote:
It can, but so far it's really ugly to apply transformations to entire
modules. A little syntactic sugar could be good there.
JM module $hat.Foo(..) where
JM ...
JM could mean pass the entire module through the 'hat' function of
Hello John,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 6:03:06 AM, you wrote:
Unfortunately, local instance declarations threaten the coherence
property of type classes and principle types. See for example,
``Functional pearl: implicit configurations—or, type classes reflect the
values of types'', Sect
Hello John,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 12:51:58 PM, you wrote:
JH Let me make clear that what concerns me is not the impact of the M-R on
JH space and time
JH performance on average. What concerns me is the difficulty of debugging
JH performance
JH problems.
may be it's better in such case
Hello Johannes,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 2:17:42 PM, you wrote:
JW When I first learned functional dependencies
JW I remember I was really confused by their syntax.
JW First, it is hard to find it defined:
i should wrote this earlier, but nevertheless:
Hugs documentation contains
Hello Bulat,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 3:48:45 PM, you wrote:
JW When I first learned functional dependencies
JW I remember I was really confused by their syntax.
JW First, it is hard to find it defined:
BZ Hugs documentation contains excellent introduction into the fundeps.
namely chapter
Hello Wolfgang,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 2:22:17 AM, you wrote:
1) significantly simplifies declarations using typeclasses. i
was seriously bitten by those huge declarations, and think that
simplification in this area will lead to much wider use of type
classes by the ordibary users (like
Hello Benjamin,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 2:29:47 AM, you wrote:
(+ x) --- (? + x)
i like this idea! but i tink that it's too late for such incompatible change :(
really, unary operators can be added to language without any troubles.
we need only to prohibit using of the same symbol for unary
Hello Tomasz,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 10:52:22 AM, you wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure about caseless underscore, concurrency, natural
numbers and parallel list comprehensions.
TZ The design of Haskell was so great, that we could add concurrency as
TZ a library without introducing
Hello John,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 3:39:38 AM, you wrote:
Got a unicode-compliant compiler?
JM sure do :)
JM but it currently doesn't recognize any unicode characters as possible
JM operators.
are you read this? :)
Log:
Add support for UTF-8 source files
GHC finally has
Hello Wolfgang,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 1:46:56 AM, you wrote:
i had one idea, what is somewhat corresponding to this discussion:
make a strict Haskell dialect. implement it by translating all
expressions of form f x into f $! x and then going to the standard
(lazy) haskell translator.
Hello Tomasz,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 2:00:23 PM, you wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure about caseless underscore, concurrency, natural
numbers and parallel list comprehensions.
TZ The design of Haskell was so great, that we could add concurrency as
TZ a library without
Hello John,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 8:11:48 PM, you wrote:
Yes. Plus, I'd say, the presence of threading primitives that return
certain well-defined exceptions or something along those lines, so that
it's not necessary to know whether multithreading is supported at
compile time.
JM
Hello Marcin,
Saturday, February 04, 2006, 2:23:50 AM, you wrote:
if my idea was incorporated in Haskell, this change don't require
even changing signatures of most functions working with arrays -
just Array type become Array interface, what a much difference?
What would 'Eq - Eq - Ord -
Hello Dave,
Saturday, February 04, 2006, 3:52:46 AM, you wrote:
Now i'm trying to generalize my functions parameters/results to type
classes instead of single types. for example, getFileSize function can
return any numeric value, be it Integer, Word or Int64. This,
naturally, results in those
Hello Tomasz,
Saturday, February 04, 2006, 12:39:38 PM, you wrote:
make a strict Haskell dialect.
TZ I am with you. If Haskell switches to strictness,
as i said, strict _dialect_ is interesting for optimization, moving
from other languages and making strict variants of data structures
--
Hello Ketil,
Monday, February 06, 2006, 4:06:35 PM, you wrote:
foo :: !Int - !Int
KM (Is the second ! actually meaningful?)
yes! it means that the function is strict in its result - i.e. can't return
undefined value when strict arguments are given. this sort of knowledge
should help a
Hello Henning,
Monday, February 06, 2006, 4:12:44 PM, you wrote:
In my opinion all the special syntactic sugar for lists should go
away. I don't think lists are special enough to motivate it.
HT Fine, someone shares my attitude towards the list sugar. Nevertheless, do
HT you mean with 'no
Hello John,
Tuesday, February 07, 2006, 4:23:36 AM, you wrote:
data Eq a = Set a = Set (List a)
that is a sort of extension i will be glad to see. in my Streams
library, it's a typical beast and i forced to move all these contexts
to the instances/functions definitions:
data
Hello Robert,
Tuesday, February 07, 2006, 6:42:41 PM, you wrote:
More disturbing is the complete inability to write general functions
over tuples.
RD As I understand it, you still have to write down the instance
RD declarations when using '-fgenerics'.
only one generic instance. it's very
Hello John,
Friday, February 03, 2006, 12:00:32 PM, you wrote:
JM If we had a good standard poll/select interface in System.IO then we
JM actually could implement a lot of concurrency as a library with no
JM (required) run-time overhead. I'd really like to see such a thing get
JM into the
Hello Ian,
Wednesday, February 08, 2006, 9:28:51 PM, you wrote:
nonrecursive let in Haskell so that I could write let x = ...x... in ...,
IL I would argue that the language should discourage variable shadowing, so
IL that shadow warnings can be used to find bugs.
i use such shadowing to change
Hello Johannes,
Thursday, February 09, 2006, 1:43:38 PM, you wrote:
JW With Data.Generics, we can get an object's type, constructor and fields.
really, SYB way to metaprogramming is just to encode information about
type in the datastructure. you can do somethiong in this fashion just
by
Hello Johannes,
Thursday, February 09, 2006, 2:43:49 PM, you wrote:
again TH can be used and you will be limited only by the volume of
information, available for TH code.
JW Is information such as instance C t1 t2 .. available for such code?
JW I guess not since this would require
Hello Simon,
Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 12:53:09 PM, you wrote:
SM simplicity, packages are the unit in several concepts: distribution,
SM dependency, versioning, licensing, dynamic linking, include file
SM dependencies, external library dependencies, and more. If we start
SM confusing the
Hello Ben,
Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 9:47:19 PM, you wrote:
BRG While we're on the topic, I have a couple of problems with the current
array
BRG system that cut deeper than the naming:
BRG * The function for getting the bounds of an MArray is pure, so the
BRGinterface can't
Hello Simon,
Thursday, February 23, 2006, 2:21:22 PM, you wrote:
SMghc --make My.Dotted.Module.hs Main.hs
SM works fine. Similarly with GHCi.
i don't known that. we should add this to faq
SM It's only when GHC has to actually *find* a source file for a module
SM that the hierarchical
Hello Claus,
Friday, February 24, 2006, 2:46:40 PM, you wrote:
CR yes, this would add one constraint on where to place definitions. but
CR grouping logically related definitions together is not quite what one
CR might think anyway: aren't the definitions making up the interface
CR most strongly
Hello Claus,
Friday, February 24, 2006, 6:55:51 PM, you wrote:
CR not quite (though I believe that would be close to Simon M's idea).
CR in my modification, both map and length would move completely
CR into the export section
WHY? it's not the interface. implementation of exported functions is
Hello Claus,
Friday, February 24, 2006, 7:53:09 PM, you wrote:
CR public class C a
CR where
CR public m1 :: a
CR private m2 :: a - String
please don't stop on this!
public map (private f) (public (private x:public xs)) =
private (public f (private x))
`public :`
Hello John,
Tuesday, February 28, 2006, 4:23:24 AM, you wrote:
i had plans to propose the same and even more:
instance C2 a b | a/=b
JM I was thinking it would be all kinds of useful if we had two predefined
JM classes
JM class Eq a b
JM class NEq a b
JM where Eq has instances exactly
Hello Claus,
Tuesday, February 28, 2006, 1:54:25 PM, you wrote:
CR class NEq a b
CR instance Fail a = NEq a a
CR instance NEq a b
i think that this definition just use ad-hoc overlapping instances
resolution mechanism that we want to avoid :)))
--
Best regards,
Bulat
Hello Claus,
Monday, March 6, 2006, 4:30:04 PM, you wrote:
my own opinion is that this scheme is like classes - they can be
resolved at compile time in most real cases but noone do it because
code will be too large. if some function can accept any records which
has field 'a' then to use this
Hello Doaitse,
Thursday, March 9, 2006, 12:01:37 AM, you wrote:
DS xs `zipWith (+)` ys
i had the same desire several times
Possibly `(expr)` ?
it will be non-readable. it is better to just prohibit using of
backquotes inside backquotes. and fixity can be fixed at 0, imho.
at least, my
Hello Christian,
Friday, March 10, 2006, 2:32:02 PM, you wrote:
f x | not (x `Set.member` map) foo = ...
is hard to read.
btw, (x `not.Set.member` map), as proposed by Doaitse Swierstra, will
look better in this case
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:[EMAIL
Hello Chris,
Sunday, March 12, 2006, 2:05:09 PM, you wrote:
CK Is GHC.PArr documented?
it's perfectly documented in module sources itself :) you can also
look at the ndpFlatten directory in ghc compiler's sources. i've
successfully used them in my program, of course this makes program
faster
Hello Lennart,
Sunday, March 19, 2006, 4:05:03 AM, you wrote:
LA I have to agree with Manuel. I write a lot of Haskell code.
LA People even pay me to do it. I usually stay with Haskell-98,
when i wrote application code, i also don't used extensions very much,
i even don't used Haskell-98 very
Hello Claus,
Monday, March 6, 2006, 2:35:04 PM, you wrote:
also, while i like dynamic records for some types of tasks, i think
that the spirit of Haskell in whole is to give explicit definitions
of all types used and in this respect this type extension in not on
main way.
CR record
Hello Manuel,
Sunday, March 19, 2006, 7:25:44 PM, you wrote:
i had a class which defines default reference type for monads:
class Ref m r | m-r where
to be exact,
class Ref m r | m-r, r-m where
newRef :: a - m (r a)
readRef :: r a - m a
writeRef :: r a - a - m ()
or even worser:
Hello Simon,
Monday, March 20, 2006, 1:47:52 PM, you wrote:
i've proposed to allow adding strict mark to any type constructors and
type constructor parameters so that finally we can define any data
structure that can be defined in strict languages. in particular:
type StrictPair a b = !(,)
Hello Wolfgang,
Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 1:29:24 AM, you wrote:
you said WHAT you think but not said WHY? my motivation is to be able
to use myriads of already implemented algorithms on new datatypes
as i said, shebang patterns allow only to specify that IMPLEMENTATION
of some function is
Hello ,
about this - i'm almost sure that current widely used libraries
(NewBinary) is not as good as my own one
(http://freearc.narod.ru/Streams.tar.gz) is not ever used and even
still not documented, so it is not easy to make right choice :)
--
Best regards,
Bulat
Hello Bulat,
Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 4:38:13 PM, you wrote:
BZ about this - i'm almost sure that current widely used libraries
BZ (NewBinary) is not as good as my own one
BZ (http://freearc.narod.ru/Streams.tar.gz) is not ever used and even
BZ still not documented, so it is not easy to make
Hello Ross,
Saturday, March 25, 2006, 4:16:01 AM, you wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 02:47:09PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
I think it would be a mistake to relegate concurrency to an addendum; it
is a central feature of the language, and in fact is one area where
Haskell (strictly speaking
Hello haskell-prime,
i've planned some time ago to open unicode/internalization wiki page,
what reflects current state of the art in this area. here is the
information i have, please add/correct me if i don't know something or
wrong.
1. Char supports full Unicode range (about million of chars)
to be fair, it also don't work with Hugs 03 and Hugs 05
data UnboxedMutableArray i e = UMA !i !i
type IOUArray i e = UnboxedMutableArray i e
data Dynamic a i e = Dynamic (a i e)
type DynamicIOUArray s = Dynamic IOUArray
if second line substituted with the following
type IOUArray =
Hello John,
Saturday, April 1, 2006, 4:53:00 AM, you wrote:
In an implementation which runs more than one Haskell thread inside
one OS thread, like ghc without -threaded or hugs, the threads are
NOT completely independent, because they share one C stack. So while
no, state-threads, a la
Hello Simon,
Friday, March 31, 2006, 4:57:19 PM, you wrote:
threadSetPriority :: ThreadID - Int - IO ()
it was requested by Joel Reymont, and he even give us information how
that is implemented in Erlang, together with hint to assign higher
priorities to consuming threads.
Yes, but the
Hello David,
Saturday, April 1, 2006, 4:31:05 PM, you wrote:
I'd like to be sure that asynchronous exceptions can get into the standard.
They require concurrency, but I'm not sure that they're included in John's
page.
this an another ticket
It would also be nice to address signal behavior,
Hello John,
Monday, April 3, 2006, 12:53:05 PM, you wrote:
new stacks can be allocated by alloca() calls. all these
alloca-allocated stack segments can be used as pool of stacks assigned
to the forked threads. although i don't tried this, my own library
also used processor-specific method.
Hello John,
Tuesday, April 4, 2006, 5:55:19 AM, you wrote:
In my survey of when 'reentrant concurrent' was needed, I looked at all
the standard libraries and didn't find anywhere it was actually needed.
Are there some compelling examples of when it is really needed in a
setting that doesn't
Hello ,
as i see, it was some form of formal specification for subj:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/haskell-1990-2000/msg05468.html
--
Best regards,
Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Hello Ross,
Tuesday, April 4, 2006, 4:55:09 PM, you wrote:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/haskell-1990-2000/msg00727.html
(Making 'deriving' a separate declaration instead of a clause)
Orphan instances are discouraged in the GHC libraries, so there might
not be much support for adding a
Hello John,
Tuesday, April 11, 2006, 2:43:49 AM, you wrote:
true. in any case, deepseq is not always a win.
don't forget that Andy don't plan to apply deepSeq to any expression.
in his program, there is a LARGE datastructure with a couple of
unevaluated thunks what may be simplified by call to
Hello Ashley,
Friday, April 28, 2006, 5:09:07 AM, you wrote:
You can do two-way fundeps. Can these be done with associated types? For
instance:
It might not be a great loss if not.
may be you want to say it might be a great loss ?
i'm using two-way fundeps to implement monad-independent
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
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
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
Hello Jon,
Monday, August 14, 2006, 1:49:58 PM, you wrote:
instance Monad [] where
fmap = map
return x = [x]
join = concat
i support this idea. [...]
I'm not sure it's quite right. Surely it only makes sense if
it defines all the (necessary) superclass methods -- in
Hello Taral,
Monday, August 14, 2006, 3:34:29 PM, you wrote:
On 8/14/06, Jon Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of course, there's no reason to do that, but what I'm
proposing is that we allow default instance declarations in
class declarations in much the same way as default methods:
I
Hello Duncan,
Tuesday, August 15, 2006, 2:37:50 AM, you wrote:
If it goes in that direction it'd be nice to consider the issue of
structures which cannot support a polymorphic map. Of course such
specialised containers (eg unboxed arrays or strings) are not functors
but they are still useful
Hello Simon,
Thursday, August 31, 2006, 12:33:26 PM, you wrote:
I don't think we need more extensions to do a reasonable job of
extensible exceptions:
http://www.haskell.org/~simonmar/papers/ext-exceptions.pdf
i'm not yet read but guess that this is paper you will present at ICFP?
can you
Hello Andres,
Friday, September 1, 2006, 2:27:34 PM, you wrote:
Thanks for your interest in open data types. As one of the authors of
the open data types paper, I'd like to comment on the current
discussion.
i'm not yet read about this, but may be open types have something in
common with
Hello Manuel,
Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 9:17:46 PM, you wrote:
So, both features are truly orthogonal and, in fact, they are
synergetic! More precisely, an alternative syntax for Löh/Hinze open
types are overlapping type families. So, we might define S
alternatively as
data
Hello Conor,
Thursday, September 28, 2006, 10:30:46 PM, you wrote:
gcd x y | compare x y -
LT = gcd x (y - x)
GT = gcd (x - y) y
gcd x _ = x
or some such. I wish I could think of a better example without too much
context, but such a thing escapes me for the moment. In general,
Hello haskell-prime,
first is the monomorphism restriction. why isn't it possible to check
_kind_ of parameter-less equation and apply monomorphism restrictions
only to values of kind '*'? so, this:
sum = foldr1 (*)
will become polymorphic because its kind is '*-*' while this
exps = 1 : map
Hello haskell-prime,
1. allow to use '_' in number literals. its used in Ruby and i found
that this makes long number literals much more readable. for example
maxint = 2_147_483_648
2. allow to use string literals in patterns as head of matched list:
optionValue (kb++n) = read n * 2^10
Hello William,
Sunday, October 15, 2006, 5:07:26 PM, you wrote:
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~lipeng/homepage/unify.html
can this be ported to windows?
(i don't yet read the paper)
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Claus,
Wednesday, October 18, 2006, 2:44:29 PM, you wrote:
(\ arms ) x
this looks great. smth like:
proc $ \[x] - x*2
\[x,y] - x*y
\[]- 0
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Alan,
Thursday, October 19, 2006, 5:54:06 PM, you wrote:
I propose that haskell' include a standard syntax for invariants that
the programmer wants to express.
The intent is not to have standardized checks on the invariants, its
just to supply a common way to specify invariants to
Hello Henning,
Sunday, October 22, 2006, 5:48:11 PM, you wrote:
I don't see the benefit of allowing imports anywhere at top-level.
it is useful to move together imports and related code. say:
#if HUGS
import Hugs.Base
addInt = hugsAddInt
#elseif GHC
import GHC.Base
addInt = ghcAddInt
#endif
Hello Jon,
Wednesday, October 25, 2006, 6:37:33 PM, you wrote:
0x_3729 makes perfect sense as hex and the _ does a
nice job of separating the digits into readable groups.
0x~~3729 looks similar, but doesn't mean the same thing
at all.
0x~~0x3729 is ugly and probably less
Hello Iavor,
Thursday, October 26, 2006, 4:51:00 AM, you wrote:
kb,mg,gb :: Num a = a
kb = 1024
mb = 1024 * kb
gb = 1024 * mb
b :kb :mb :gb :_ = iterate (1024*) 1 :: [Int]
b_:kb_:mb_:gb_:tb_:_ = iterate (1024*) 1 :: [Integer]
and now we can write (4 * kb) instead for 4096.
btw,
Hello Taral,
Thursday, October 26, 2006, 6:33:44 PM, you wrote:
btw, your variant requires re-calculating values on each their use
That's what constant folding is for.
are c.f. should work for polymorhic values? afaiu, it's just the
problem that leads to the famous monomorhism restriction.
Hello Brian,
Thursday, November 2, 2006, 12:15:38 AM, you wrote:
In particular, I think having features like :
import M1 hiding (instance C T)
and
module M hiding (instance C T)
would eliminate the need for special-case handling of derived
instances (if two imported modules happen
Hello Malcolm,
Thursday, November 2, 2006, 12:46:43 AM, you wrote:
instance Num (Bar z) where
and
instance Num (Bar z)
The former declares that _no_ methods are defined (except for defaults),
and the latter, with your proposal, that _all_ methods are defined. The
i join to this
Hello Dan,
Saturday, November 4, 2006, 5:07:15 AM, you wrote:
Here's an idea that (I think) is useful and backwards compatible:
fractional and negative fixity.
yes, i think the same. for example, once i've tried to define postfix
'when' operator like those in perl/ruby
print msg `on`
Hello Henning,
Monday, November 6, 2006, 1:27:54 PM, you wrote:
print msg `on` mode==debug
but failed because my code frequently contains '$' and there is no way
to define operation with a lower precedence
This could be solved by the solutions proposed in this thread:
Hello Nicolas,
Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 1:25:23 AM, you wrote:
prec ?? $
over-specification). You want ?? to bind more tightly than does $;
that's exactly what this approach would let you specify.
and how then compiler will guess that is relational priority of this
operator comparing
Hello Lennart,
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 6:49:15 AM, you wrote:
class IsString s where
fromString :: String - s
My guess is that the defaulting mechanism needs to be extended to
default to the String type as well,
imho, it is MUST BE. this will allow to became ByteString and any
Hello Donald,
Saturday, November 11, 2006, 7:33:48 AM, you wrote:
Yes, pattern matching is the issue that occurs to me too.
While string literals :: ByteString would be nice (and other magic
encoded in string literals, I guess), what is the story for pattern
matching on strings based on
Both Java and C# provides annotations that can be used to pass some
additional information about code to around-language tools and queried
at program runtime via Reflection API:
[AuthorAttribute (Ben Albahari)]
class A
{
[Localizable(true)]
public String Text {
get {return text;
Hello Simon,
Monday, November 13, 2006, 8:27:08 PM, you wrote:
In my experience I've seen more requests for overloaded *Boolean*
literals than strings. In a Fran context, for example.
what you mean by this? а few days ago i've published in cafe small lib
that allows to write things like (str
Hello Malcolm,
Friday, November 24, 2006, 8:26:11 PM, you wrote:
i think that we should require H' compatibility instead of H98 one, so
require to not use fundeps, but allow MPTC. this means that NHC should
be ruled out as non-H' compliant compiler instead of these libs
Why pick on nhc98?
Hello libraries,
like computer is a net, nowadays language is a library. there is
nothing exceptional in C++ and Java languages except for their huge
library codebase that makes them so widely appreciated
while it's impossible for Haskell to have the same level of libraries
maturity, we can try
Hello Iavor,
Thursday, November 30, 2006, 8:41:43 PM, you wrote:
However, I am not sure that this particular use justifies the
addition of defaulting to the _language_. For example, it is possible
that defaulting is implemented as a switch to the command-line
interpreter.
how about using
Hello Rene,
Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 10:49:06 PM, you wrote:
Going by the traffic over the previous months, I think that class aliases or
extensible records would be higher on most peoples lists than views.
i think that proper views is a must for Haskell - We are keen on
abstraction, but
Hello Simon,
Monday, January 22, 2007, 5:57:27 PM, you wrote:
adding view patterns to Haskell.
many of us was attracted to Haskell because it has clear and simple
syntax. but many Hugs/GHC extensions done by independent developers
differ in the syntax they used, because these developers either
Hello David,
Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 7:12:05 PM, you wrote:
data Coord = Coord Float Float
view of Coord = Polar Float Float where
Polar r d= Coord (r*d) (r+d)-- construction
Coord x y | x/=0 || y/=0 = Polar (x*y) (x+y)-- matching
This is
Hello J.,
Thursday, February 1, 2007, 1:36:33 AM, you wrote:
Yes - you've reiterated Wadler's original design, with an automatic
problems with equational reasoning raised by this approach.
ok, i can live without it. i mean reasoning :)
i guess that anything more complex than Turing machine
Hello Brian,
Saturday, February 3, 2007, 10:55:52 AM, you wrote:
bracket_
(enter a)
(exit a)
(do
b
c)-- looks like LISP...
this pattern is very typical in my programs and i use '$' before last
Hello Twan,
Saturday, April 14, 2007, 5:43:03 AM, you wrote:
I did not even know these things existed, is there anyone who actually
uses general pattern bindings?
b:kb:mb:gb:_ = iterate (1024*) 1
unfortunately, they got monotypes, so at last end i finished with
simpler definitions
Hello Isaac,
Sunday, May 20, 2007, 6:41:54 PM, you wrote:
Maybe some sort of ISOLATE, DON'T_OPTIMIZE (but CAF), or
USED_AS_GLOBAL_VARIABLE pragma instead of just the insufficient NOINLINE
would be a good first step...
or LOOK_BUT_DON'T_TOUCH :)
--
Best regards,
Bulat
Hello Isaac,
Monday, June 18, 2007, 9:20:29 PM, you wrote:
I was just bitten in ghci by `divMod` being the default infixl 9 instead
of the same as `div` and `mod`.
one of my hard-to-find bugs was exactly in this area: i wrote
something like x `div` y+1 instead of x `div` (y+1)
so, based
Hello Simon,
Wednesday, July 11, 2007, 11:38:31 AM, you wrote:
So Greg's idea (or at least my understanding thereof) is to write it like
this:
do { f $(stuff1) $(stuff2) }
Simon, it is thing i dreamed for a years! Haskell has serious drawback
for imperative programming compared to
Hello Neil,
Thursday, July 12, 2007, 3:10:10 PM, you wrote:
This extension seems like a great idea - my only concern would be
about the order of computations. Clearly left-to-right makes sense,
but this may break some natural intuition in Haskell:
i think that undefined order will be a best
Hello haskell-prime,
one more proposal is about standard libs. it is well known that today
libs outweighs all other parts of modern language and work on their
standardization will probably stall the whole Haskell-prime process.
OTOH, languages like Java was grown due to their rich set of
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
