Re[2]: Priorities

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

Re[2]: Java-like

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

Re[2]: Restricted Data Types

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

Re[2]: Tuple-like constructors

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

extending bang proposal Re: strict Haskell dialect

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

Re[2]: [Haskell-cafe] Why is $ right associative instead of left associative?

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

Re[2]: Priorities

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

Re[2]: give equal rights to types and classes! :)

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 -

Re[3]: give equal rights to types and classes! :)

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

Re[2]: strict Haskell dialect

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 --

Re[2]: give equal rights to types and classes! :)

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

Re: Unary operators [was: Re: ~ patterns]

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

Re[2]: Priorities

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

Re[2]: Comment Syntax

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

Re[2]: strict Haskell dialect

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.

Re[2]: Priorities

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

Re[2]: Comment Syntax

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

Re[2]: strict Haskell dialect

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

Re[2]: Wanted: local data, class, instance declarations

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

Re[2]: Test performance impact (was: The dreaded M-R)

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

Re: fundeps syntax is ugly

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

Re[2]: fundeps syntax is ugly

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

strict Haskell dialect

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.

Re[2]: ~ patterns

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

Re: Wanted: local data, class, instance declarations

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

<    1   2