Thanks for the new year's gift Adam! :)
Happy new year you all,
Saulo
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Adam Chlipala wrote:
> OK, after much anticipation... I finally made the Ur/Web grammar change
> that should make your original code Just Work.
>
>
> On 10/12/2016 01:50 PM, Adam Chlipala wrot
OK, after much anticipation... I finally made the Ur/Web grammar change
that should make your original code Just Work.
On 10/12/2016 01:50 PM, Adam Chlipala wrote:
On 10/08/2016 07:41 PM, Saulo Araujo wrote:
Thanks for suggesting this workaround. I was able to implement it,
but I have some dou
On 10/08/2016 07:41 PM, Saulo Araujo wrote:
Thanks for suggesting this workaround. I was able to implement it, but
I have some doubts. [...]
After some trial and error, the compiler was happy with
con concat nm t r = [[nm] ~ r] => $([nm = t] ++ r)
Which brings me the question: what is [[nm] ~
Hi Adam,
Thanks for suggesting this workaround. I was able to implement it, but I
have some doubts. Perhaps you can point me to the relevant bits in the
Ur/Web documentation or you can clear them up.
Following your suggestion, I started defining
con concat nm t r = $([nm = t] ++ r)
But the Ur/W
It does seem likely that the parser isn't allowing qualified names in
record literals. The problem is easy to work around by defining a type
synonym that you use instead. Here's some code (not actually run
through Ur/Web yet!):
type blah x y z = $([x = y] ++ z)
... where type t = blah
