RE: Implicit Function Arguments
| > This is the second time I have seen someone comment on implicit | > parameters being planned for removal, so now you have my attention :). | > I'd like to mention that a rather large project where I work (Galois, | > Inc.) uses implicit parameters a lot, so removing support for them | > would make me rather unhappy. | | | Hm, looks like terminology confusion. Implicit parameters are | staying. *Linear* implicit parameters were deprecated in 6.6 and seem | to be gone now. Brandon's right. Linear implicit parameters are gone. Opinions differ about (ordinary) implicit parameters, but they are sometimes jolly useful, and don't seem to impose non-local complications on the type system. We have no plans to remove them from GHC. Simon ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Implicit Function Arguments
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 01:00:17PM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > > On 2008 Jun 28, at 12:32, Tyson Whitehead wrote: > > > What do people think about implicit function argument? > > > http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/other-type-extensions.html#implicit-parameters > It uses ? as the prefix instead of ~ (which already has a meaning in pattern > matching). The solution I might have tried is using StateT and and some kind of HList to pass state so that items can be appended and removed easily.. I didn't knew about this features which makes me aware again about how important it is to not stop learning new features.. I'll have a look at it now Marc ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Implicit Function Arguments
On 2008 Jun 29, at 4:56, Philip Weaver wrote: I am under the impression they are deprecated and slated for removal. This is the second time I have seen someone comment on implicit parameters being planned for removal, so now you have my attention :). I'd like to mention that a rather large project where I work (Galois, Inc.) uses implicit parameters a lot, so removing support for them would make me rather unhappy. Hm, looks like terminology confusion. Implicit parameters are staying. *Linear* implicit parameters were deprecated in 6.6 and seem to be gone now. -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED] system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED] electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon universityKF8NH ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Implicit Function Arguments
> I am under the impression they are deprecated and slated for removal. > This is the second time I have seen someone comment on implicit parameters being planned for removal, so now you have my attention :). I'd like to mention that a rather large project where I work (Galois, Inc.) uses implicit parameters a lot, so removing support for them would make me rather unhappy. - Phil ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: Implicit Function Arguments
On 2008 Jun 28, at 12:32, Tyson Whitehead wrote: What do people think about implicit function argument? http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/other-type-extensions.html#implicit-parameters It uses ? as the prefix instead of ~ (which already has a meaning in pattern matching). I am under the impression they are deprecated and slated for removal. -- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED] system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED] electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon universityKF8NH ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
