I'd better make sure that scanning *can't* give an error, though.
There are several errors that can occur in the lex phase, e.g.,
'\q'bad character literal
"\q"bad string literal
\u0001 bad character in input
I REALLY dislike the idea of having my
Actually, shouldn't "isn't" be parsed as a single varid? From the 1.4
report:
OK, OK, let me change my example:
{- A comment, isn 't it? -}
-- Lennart
On 23 Nov, Graeme Moss wrote:
So no one minds that `--(Nothing)' is a comment whereas `--?Nothing?'
is not a comment?
I think that this highlights the fact that the top-bit-set characters
were put into the language with relatively few distinctions; ASCII
brackets (){}[] are not included
Just to confirm,
What is the official handling of:
main = putStr " -- Hello World "
and
main = putStr " {- this is not a comment -} "
-Alex-
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I REALLY dislike the idea of having my comments lexed. Can't we leave
Folks, here's a clarification about comment syntax.
Simon
|The new draft (which you won't have seen) says:
|
|"An ordinary comment begins with a lexeme consisting of
|two or more consecutive dashes (e.g. @--@) and extends to the following
|newline. The comment must begin with a lexeme
| Starts a comment: `--', `---', `--Hello', `--(', `--;', `--_'
|
| Does not start a comment: `--', `--=', `--\', `--.', `--|', `---',
| `--? What is this', `--! Amazing', `--½ done', `--® Microsoft',
| `--© 1998 Microsoft', `--«Nothing»'.
|
|Yes, these are correct.
So no one minds that
I don't understand this remark. Are you telling me that after
a '{-' token the usual lexical process is used to find the
matching '-}' token?
That's what I intended. Provided that scanning can't given an error,
that is actually *easier* than searching for the first '-}' sequence.
And it
| {- A comment, isn't it? -}
|despite the unmatched single quote.
Actually, shouldn't "isn't" be parsed as a single varid? From the 1.4
report:
"An identifier consists of a letter followed by zero or more letters,
digits, underscores, and single quotes."
I don't know of anywhere in the
At 10:40 -0800 1998/11/13, Jeffrey R. Lewis wrote:
Say you've got some code that wasn't originally
monadic, and you now need to re-express your code in monadic form. You
apply the monad translation. Using the `kleisli' functions makes this
process simpler. Consider:
map f (... xs ...)
At 05:53 -0800 1998/11/13, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
* Still no decision about the default default. I'm minded to
try out the change myself and see how many times it's used
in the nofib suite. I think the main choices are
(Int, Double)
(Integer, Double)
I
Hans Aberg wrote:
At 10:40 -0800 1998/11/13, Jeffrey R. Lewis wrote:
Say you've got some code that wasn't originally
monadic, and you now need to re-express your code in monadic form. You
apply the monad translation. Using the `kleisli' functions makes this
process simpler. Consider:
Hi Simon, you spake of simple-context restriction:
My default position is not to change. Question: who, apart from
Ralf, has actually tripped over the lack of contexts of the
form (C (a t1 .. tn)) in Haskell 1.4?
*raises hand and jumps up and down* Me, mememe! I provided you
with an
Lennart wrote:
Sorry, I'm not happy with this proposal. Monads are a well
defined mathematical concept and I think the Monad class should
reflect this. Having a mzero (and mfail) method seems weird to
me. I would suggest a MonadZero class having these methods,
and that do notation on works
On 05-Nov-1998, Lennart Augustsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon wrote:
- The do-expression and MonadZero debate. You'll have seen a
lot about this, and I'll circulate a separate proposal.
Sorry, I'm not happy with this proposal. Monads are a well
defined mathematical concept and I
Simon wrote:
- The do-expression and MonadZero debate. You'll have seen a
lot about this, and I'll circulate a separate proposal.
Sorry, I'm not happy with this proposal. Monads are a well
defined mathematical concept and I think the Monad class should
reflect this. Having a mzero (and
On 05-Nov-1998, Lennart Augustsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Integers can have "error", why shouldn't Monads have "mfail"?
I'm objecting less to mfail then mzero.
OK, in that case I agree with you.
--
Fergus Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW:
- The simple-context restriction. My difficulty here is that there
is just no good place to stop. The 'type variable in head position'
option is attractive, but it's unimplemented, untested, and it's
neither the status quo nor a final destination. On the other hand,
we
17 matches
Mail list logo
