Josef Svenningsson wrote:
On 4/24/07, Jacques Carette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In Ocaml, you can frequently use polymorphic variants to get the same
effect.
Which means that if you are willing to do enough type-class-hackery, it
should, in principle, be possible to do the same in Haskell. Bu
On 4/24/07, Jacques Carette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In Ocaml, you can frequently use polymorphic variants to get the same
effect.
Which means that if you are willing to do enough type-class-hackery, it
should, in principle, be possible to do the same in Haskell. But it
sure isn't as convenie
Magnus Jonsson wrote:
I have the same problem too when using Haskell. The more I try to
enforce static guarantees the more I get lots of datatypes that are
similar except for one or two constructors. The best way I have found
to avoid this is to simply give up on some of the static guarantees
I have the same problem too when using Haskell. The more I try to enforce
static guarantees the more I get lots of datatypes that are similar except
for one or two constructors. The best way I have found to avoid this is to
simply give up on some of the static guarantees and just use one datatyp
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:23:47 +0100
Joel Reymont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm finding myself dealing with several large abstract syntax trees
> that are very similar in nature. The constructor names would be the
> same or one type may be a small extension of another.
>
> This is something
I'm finding myself dealing with several large abstract syntax trees
that are very similar in nature. The constructor names would be the
same or one type may be a small extension of another.
This is something that I wouldn't worry about with Lisp, for example,
as I would create a bunch of ma