Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:42:10AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
Ok. So I counter-propose that we deal with pattern bindings like this:
The static semantics of a pattern binding are given by the following
translation. A binding 'p = e' has the same meaning as the set of
b
> I don't think it makes sense to make a special case for requiring spaces
> around "$", as TH won't be in H'.
I agree, there's absolutely no need to treat $ differently in H'. The
situation will already be better than it is now, since by the special
treatment of . (and - and !, which I also agr
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:39:09AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> Ok, I'm going to try to make some progress on this. I think it's fair
> to say that the only possible options are (0) do nothing, or (2) require
> spaces around "." as an operator.
If we are considering requiring spaces around "
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:42:10AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> Ok. So I counter-propose that we deal with pattern bindings like this:
>
> The static semantics of a pattern binding are given by the following
> translation. A binding 'p = e' has the same meaning as the set of
> bindings
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I suggest we reject the proposal, and move any further discussion to
> haskell-cafe. Ok?
Sounds good to me.
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://ww
Simon Marlow wrote:
Here are the possibilities for composition:
0. do nothing
1. use a Unicode operator for composition
2. require spaces around . as an operator
3. require spaces around all operators
4. use another ASCII operator for composition, e.g. <<<
Nothing has been decided yet, but mos
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok. So I counter-propose that we deal with pattern bindings like this:
>
> The static semantics of a pattern binding are given by the following
> translation. A binding 'p = e' has the same meaning as the set of
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Lennart Augustsson:
So I still think changing $ is insane. Why change? If you want a new
operator, make a new one. Don't make a gratuitous change that will
waste countless man hours. For me it's a simple decision, if $
changes I cannot use Haskell'. :(
Give
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| The report doesn't actually mention this translation although it is
| widely used to implement pattern bindings, and in some compilers (not
| GHC) the translation is done before type checking.
|
| What's interesting to me is that perhaps this gives us a way to
| unders
