Re: Which GUI on X11R6 ?
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Alex Ferguson wrote: > > Wilhelm B. Kloke: > > has anybody there an idea which GUI is usable with Haskell 98 on > > a Unix/X11R6 system (FreeBSD to be complete)? > > > > It seems that all GUI stuff develepmont (Fudgets, Haggis ...) > > has been stalled since some years. > > I'd look at TclHaskell, if I were you. It's not strictly speaking > under active development or support, as I understand it, but is in > a usable state, and other people seem to be tweaking it, and/or > working on related methodologies. Some work on TclHaskell is being done afaik, and now you'd probably take a look on my pacthes for adapting TclHaskell to Haskell98 (ghc and hugs98) under FreeBSD... I've posted them there, and you can find them in maillist arhive (haskell.org)... === Grigoriy Strokin, Lomonosov University (MGU), Moscow === === contact info: http://isabase.philol.msu.ru/~grg/ ===
Re: The dreaded layout rule
I wrote:
> lexeme -> qvarid | qconid | qvarsym | qconsym
> | literal | special | reservedop | reservedid
>
> Now we could replace qvarsym and qconsym by qop, and have both
> examples parse in the same way. However, unlike the other change in
> lexeme's definition, I don't suggest this, I only want to point out
> that there is a (formally) simple way out of the present somewhat
> inconsistent state.
I changed my mind about this issue, I do suggest to change it as
proposed, for if `elem` were three lexemes, any whitespace between
them would be allowed. This might even be considered a typo, as I
think no one intended to allow expressions like
x ` {- look ma -} elem -- comments inside!
` l
All the best,
Christian Sievers
Re: The dreaded layout rule
Christian Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I changed my mind about this issue, I do suggest to change it as
> proposed, for if `elem` were three lexemes, any whitespace between
> them would be allowed. This might even be considered a typo, as I
> think no one intended to allow expressions like
>
> x ` {- look ma -} elem -- comments inside!
>` l
Well, the GHC people deliberately wrote their compiler to support
that. Here's a comment from (an old version of) the GHC source:
Sadly, the latter is defined by Haskell, which allows such
la-la land constructs as `{-a 900-line comment-} foo`. (WDP 94/12)
Carl Witty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The dreaded layout rule
As an author of an Haskell Emacs mode that deals with the layout rule (described in Journal of Functional Programming 8(5) 493-502), I strongly agree that the "parse-error condition" is really a bad idea. For example, in Emacs, no full Haskell parse is done. After all, layout should be there to indicate clearly to a user what section of code depends on which other; the user should not have to parse and deal with some local fixity declarations. I know this suggestion would break a few Haskell programs but perhaps it should be interesting to come back to the first functional language that implemented the layout rule, Miranda (tm) where the rule was much more simply stated Syntactic objects obey Landin's offside rule. This requires that every token of the object lie directly or to the right of its first token. A token which breaks this rule is said to offside with respect to that object. And that's it... no need to have three pages of explanations and an appendix. One can find many examples where Haskell rules and Miranda differ and some times one is better than the other, but you would be surprised to see that in the majority of the cases, the indentation that people normally produce are very similar under both rules. Guy Lapalme Université de Montréal PS: as a Quiz, can you guess how in Haskell the following is interpreted? f x = 1 + x g y = 1 + y
Re: Which GUI on X11R6 ?
> has anybody there an idea which GUI is usable with Haskell 98 on > a Unix/X11R6 system (FreeBSD to be complete)? I am working at a Haskell binding for GTK+ (the currently probably most popular open source GUI): http://www.score.is.tsukuba.ac.jp/~chak/haskell/gtk/ Cheers, Manuel
