EJFLP CFP
I've been asked to forward this on behalf of the EJFLP Editorial Board. Kevin - Begin Included Message - First Electronic Journal of Functional and Logic Programming Announcement and Call for Papers At the end of this year a new journal, called Electronic Journal of Functional and Logic Programming (EJFLP), will be started. EJFLP is distributed via email! Thus EJFLP will be available more easily than "hard copy journals" and you will get it FOR FREE. Since papers submitted to EJFLP pass through a refereeing process, EJFLP differs from ftp-distributed papers. The aim of EJFLP is to create a new medium for researches investigating the integration of the functional, logic and constraint programming paradigms. Papers are being solicited in the following areas: - functional and logic languages - integration of functional languages, logic languages and constraint systems - parallelism in functional and logic programming languages - interpretation, compilation and transformation techniques - static analysis for functional and logic programs - foundations and semantics (narrowing, residuation, etc) - calculi for functional, logic and constraint programming - applications - declarative programming concepts and methodolgy There is no page limit for submitted papers. Submit your contribution as a file in postscript or dvi format to the email address below. Deadline for the first volume of EJFLP is: August 31, 1993. Late papers and papers that require a major revision will be considered for the second volume. Submissions: To get some advice for submitting papers to EJFLP send an empty mail with Subject: Help to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You will get an acknowledgement of your submission within some hours. Subscription: To subscribe the journal send an empty message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You will receive an acknowledgement of your registration within some days. Anyone who has ordered EJFLP will get the contents of any volume along with the abstracts of the articles by email. Problems: If there are any problems in handling this to robots please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Editorial Board: --- Rita Loogen (RWTH Aachen) Herbert Kuchen (RWTH Aachen) Michael Hanus (MPI-Saarbruecken) Manuel MT Chakravarty (TU Berlin) Martin Koehler (Imperial College London) Yike Guo (Imperial College London) Mario Rodriguez-Artalejo (Univ. Madrid) Andy Krall (TU Wien) Andy Mueck (LMU Muenchen) Tetsuo Ida (Univ. Tsukuba, Japan) Hendrik C.R. Lock (IBM Heidelberg) Andreas Hallmann (Univ. Dortmund) Peter Padawitz (Univ. Dortmund) Christoph Brzoska (Univ. Karlsruhe) Frank Pfennig (Carnegie Mellon Univ.) - End Included Message -
Re: + and -: syntax wars!
Oops, PreludeCore cannot be hidden. I guess I've made a fool of myself (but that happens often :-). Can't we find anything more interesting to discuss that the syntax?? You are welcome to! :-) But sweeping syntax matters under the carpet does not improve anything. | ... But what I find a bit strange is that even when + and - | are overridden locally n+k and prefix - still have their old meanings. | Well, it's just one more exception to the rule to remember about Haskell. Yes, but we need to emphasize that rebinding such operators is a Bad Idea. (Maybe Phil is right, that we should simply forbid it.) I agree that it should be forbidden, not for the love of prohibitions, but in order to detect more errors in programs statically, and to avoid some quite unnecessary ways to muddle a Haskell program. But there are several degrees to which rebinding could be forbidden. Here are some of the alternatives (sorry if you find this confusing/confused :-): 1. Forbidding rebinding + and -. 2. Forbidding rebinding operators/function names exported from classes in PreludeCore. (Except in instance declarations, of course.) 3. Forbidding rebinding operators/function names declared by classes in scope. (Except...) 4. Forbidding rebinding any name exported by PreludeCore. 5. Forbidding rebinding any name in scope. I don't like singling out +, -, and PreludeCore more than necessary, so alternative 3 (plus remark below) or 5 are good candidates in my opinion. I still think that Lennarts quiz declaration should be illegal at least on the grounds Paul gave (i.e., even if the name (+) is replaced by some other name): Names bound by the "lhs"es (in each let/where declaration part) should not be allowed to be rebound by some argument pattern within one of the "funlhs"es in the declaration. Syntactically confused /kent k
