carefully before introducing any.
Cheers,
Simon
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: haskell-prime-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:haskell-prime-
| boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Ian Lynagh
| Sent: 26 July 2009 21:53
| To: haskell-prime@haskell.org
| Subject: Re
change.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: haskell-prime-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:haskell-prime-
| boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Ian Lynagh
| Sent: 26 July 2009 21:53
| To: haskell-prime@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: StricterLabelledFieldSyntax
|
| On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:16:28PM +0300
Ian Lynagh wrote:
Hi all,
I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
syntax stricter, e.g. making this illegal:
data A = A {x :: Int}
y :: Maybe A
y = Just A {x = 5}
+1: The precedence here is an ugly wart. It's particularly annoying when
teaching
Neil Mitchell ndmitch...@gmail.com
writes:
Hi
Would it be proper to create a counterproposal for this syntax?
ReversedLabelledFieldSyntax?
I would claim that, of the existing Haskell code,
StricterLabelledFieldSyntax only rejects unclear (bad) code, and
requiring it be changed (to be made
Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li writes:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/StricterLabelledFieldSyntax
I approve of the principle -- the binding level is confusing, but I
would far rather make a bigger change, so that rather than being
confusable with the binding level of function
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 09:45:18PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
Ian Lynagh wrote:
Hi all,
I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
syntax stricter, e.g. making this illegal:
data A = A {x :: Int}
y :: Maybe A
y = Just A {x = 5}
and requiring this
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Sean Leather wrote:
I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
syntax stricter
I'm definitely in favor of this change. I only have an issue with calling it
stricter. Maybe it's just me, but strictness doesn't provoke the
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 13:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Sean Leather wrote:
I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
syntax stricter
I'm definitely in favor of this change. I only have an issue with calling
it
stricter.
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 03:46:41PM +0200, Sean Leather wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 13:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Would it be useful to add an example with the appropriate parentheses?
I'm not sure I understand what sort of an example you want. Isn't
Just (A {x = 5})
one?
I think
Hi
Would it be proper to create a counterproposal for this syntax?
ReversedLabelledFieldSyntax?
I would claim that, of the existing Haskell code,
StricterLabelledFieldSyntax only rejects unclear (bad) code, and
requiring it be changed (to be made clearer) is a good thing.
I haven't seen
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote:
I haven't seen anyone else claim to use the current more liberal
syntax for fields, but I know that I do rather extensively. I would
consider:
Just A {a = 1}
To be confusing, but if you simply omit the space:
Just A{a =
I haven't seen anyone else claim to use the current more liberal
syntax for fields, but I know that I do rather extensively. I would
consider:
Just A {a = 1}
To be confusing, but if you simply omit the space:
Just A{a = 1}
I now find that perfectly clear and unambiguous.
I did
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li writes:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/StricterLabelledFieldSyntax
I approve of the principle -- the binding level is confusing, but I
would far rather make a bigger change, so that rather than being
confusable with the
Sean Leather wrote:
To me, the syntax is not actually stricter, just that the precedence for
labeled field construction, update, pattern is lower. What is the
effective new precedence with this change? Previously, it was 11 (or simply
higher than 10). Is it now equivalent to function
Hello,
I am strongly against this change. The record notation works just
fine and has been doing so for a long time. The notation is really
not that confusing and, given how records work in Haskell, makes
perfect sense (and the notation has nothing to do with the precedence
of application
Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Hello,
I am strongly against this change. The record notation works just
fine and has been doing so for a long time. The notation is really
not that confusing and, given how records work in Haskell, makes
perfect sense (and the notation has nothing to do with the
Hello,
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Isaac
Dupreem...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org wrote:
Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Hello,
I am strongly against this change. The record notation works just
fine and has been doing so for a long time. The notation is really
not that confusing and, given how
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:16:28PM +0300, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Isaac
Dupreem...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org wrote:
Iavor Diatchki wrote:
I am strongly against this change. The record notation works just
fine and has been doing so for a long time.
18 matches
Mail list logo
