[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that computable real fixity levels are useful, too.
Only finitely many operators can be declared in a given Haskell program.
Thus the strongest property you need in your set of precedence levels is
that given arbitrary finite sets of precedences A and B, with
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned showsPrec and readsPrec. Anything
more complicated than negative fixities would require their interfaces to be
changed.
-- Ben
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned showsPrec and readsPrec. Anything more
complicated than negative fixities would require their interfaces to be
changed.
Very true. Does it mean, that the Functional Graph Library has to become
part of the
Jón Fairbairn wrote:
Syntax 1, based on Phil Wadler's improvement of my old
proposal. The precedence relation is a preorder.[...]
infix {ops_1; ops_2; ...; ops_n}
The alternative syntax is exemplified thus:
infix L + - (L * / (R ^))
[...]
I think both ways (I like the second one
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
Lennart Augustsson wrote:
On Nov 7, 2006, at 11:47 ,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'd support fractional and negative fixity. It's a simple change to
make, but we also have to adopt
[...]
I think that computable real
Nicolas Frisby wrote:
Let's remember that if something is broke, it's only _right_ to _fix_
it. I patiently waited for someone else to make that pun.
Understanding the language won't be much harder, but understanding
fixity declarations will become a task. Consider:
infixl -1.7521 -- what
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
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
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, David House wrote:
On 07/11/06, Jon Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must say though, that I don't like the reasoning that we
can put in fractional fixities because it's a small
change. The way to hell is through a series of small
steps. If using integers to
Bulat Ziganshin schrieb:
Hello Nicolas,
Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 1:25:23 AM, you wrote:
prec ?? $
over-specification). You want ?? to bind more tightly than does $;
that's exactly what this approach would let you specify.
and how then compiler will guess that is relational priority
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nicolas Frisby wrote:
Let's remember that if something is broke, it's only _right_ to _fix_
it. I patiently waited for someone else to make that pun.
Understanding the language won't be much harder, but understanding
fixity declarations will
On Nov 7, 2006, at 5:49 PM, Robert Dockins wrote:
[On operator precedence]
Ha! Well, as long as we're being pedantic, surely we wouldn't need
any set
larger than the rationals (which does have a decidable ordering)?
Also, since I'm commenting anyway, I rather like the idea of
specifying
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Henning,
Monday, November 6, 2006, 1:27:54 PM, you wrote:
print msg `on` mode==debug
but failed because my code frequently contains '$' and there is no way
to define operation with a lower precedence
This could be solved by the
But DEC's language FOCAL had fractional line numbers. :)
On Nov 7, 2006, at 06:00 , Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Henning,
Monday, November 6, 2006, 1:27:54 PM, you wrote:
print msg `on` mode==debug
but failed because my code frequently
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'd support fractional and negative fixity. It's a simple change to
make, but we also have to adopt
http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/FixityResolution
I've added the proposal to the end of that page. In fact, the page
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'd support fractional and negative fixity. It's a simple change to
make, but we also have to adopt
http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki
/FixityResolution
I've added the proposal to the end of
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'd support fractional and negative fixity. It's a simple change to
make, but we also have to adopt
http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/FixityResolution
I've added the proposal to the end of that
On 07/11/06, Jon Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must say though, that I don't like the reasoning that we
can put in fractional fixities because it's a small
change. The way to hell is through a series of small
steps. If using integers to express fixities is a bit of a
hack, switching to
On Nov 7, 2006, at 11:47 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'd support fractional and negative fixity. It's a simple change to
make, but we also have to adopt
http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 17:32, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
On Nov 7, 2006, at 11:47 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Simon Marlow wrote:
I'd support fractional and negative fixity. It's a simple change to
make, but we also have to adopt
I started this e-mail thread on HaskellCafe instead of HaskellPrime
because it was minimal, backwards-compatible, valid Haskell 98 (or very
nearly so) and could go (now) into GHC if someone saw fit to put it in.
If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected
abstract
by all means, lets have warm fuzzy precedence declarations
infix(nearly right) (exp (2*i*pi) + 1) :-)
infix(mostly left) (((\x-cos x + i*(sin x)) (2*pi)) + 1) (-:
who says that all the fun has to start in the type system?-)
we would probably need to refer to hyperreals, in order to
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 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`
24 matches
Mail list logo
