To clarify my comments in this thread around desugaring: I was referring to the
concrete Haskell code as written in GHC, not at all to an abstract desugaring
algorithm. The implementation of arrows in GHC uses fixM, which is a nuisance.
And I don't understand the code well enough to be able to u
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 01:49:33PM -0600, amin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Additionally, Opaleye uses Arrow syntax pretty heavily iirc.
If I were writing the Opaleye tutorial today (and if I rewrite it) I will
shy away from arrows and encourage users to use applicative style. There's
only one operator
> El 21 dic 2016, a las 02:36, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-devs
> escribió:
>
>
>
> I even wonder (whisper it) about taking it out altogether, when Edward says
> “many of the original applications for arrows have been shown to be perfectly
> suited to being handled by Applicatives” (i.e. wi
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 05:52:34PM +0100, Boespflug, Mathieu wrote:
> And Opaleye (a successor to haskellDB, for safe interaction with SQL
> databases) also uses arrow notation last I checked. As I recall do-notation
> is too powerful, whereas proc-notation provides exactly the right
> expressive p
Exploring alternative formulations is great, but I think it's (mostly?)
orthogonal to this thread's original email: Jan found the RebindableSyntax
support for Arrow to be disappointing hamstrung. I've had a similar
experience in the past; the occurrences of the combinators seem to have
overly restr
And Opaleye (a successor to haskellDB, for safe interaction with SQL
databases) also uses arrow notation last I checked. As I recall do-notation
is too powerful, whereas proc-notation provides exactly the right
expressive power (no illegal SQL queries can be expressed). But that's not
to say Tom (a
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Edward Kmett wrote:
>
> Given that little new code seems to be being written with Arrows in mind,
> while some older code makes heavy use of it (hxt, etc.), refactoring the
> arrow hierarchy is kind of a hard sell. It is by no means impossible, just
> something th
The S&D parser I was referring to was based on tracking FIRST sets, and
provided a nice linear time parsing bound for (infinite) LL(1) grammars.
(You can't really compute FOLLOW sets without knowing the grammar has a
finite number of productions, but FIRST sets work perfectly well with
infinite gra
: Help needed: Restrictions of proc-notation with RebindableSyntax
Sorry to barge into the discussion with neither much knowledge of the theory
nor the implementation. I tried to look at both, but my understanding is
severely lacking. However I do feel a tiny bit emboldened because my own
re up for that, but it’s a rather
un-tended part of GHC.
Thanks
Simon
*From:*ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org
<mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org>] *On Behalf Of *Richard
Eisenberg
*Sent:* 28 November 2016 22:30
*To:* Ja
>>
>>
>> I don’t know if you are up for that, but it’s a rather un-tended part of
>> GHC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] *On Beha
> On Dec 17, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Ross Paterson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:41:53PM +, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
>> Type checking and desugaring for arrow syntax has received Absolutely
>> No Love for several years. I do not understand how it works very well,
>> and I would not be at
[mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org>] On
Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg
Sent: 28 November 2016 22:30
To: Jan Bracker mailto:jan.brac...@googlemail.com>>
Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>
Subject: Help needed: Restrictions of p
om:* ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Eisenberg
> *Sent:* 28 November 2016 22:30
> *To:* Jan Bracker
> *Cc:* ghc-devs@haskell.org
> *Subject:* Help needed: Restrictions of proc-notation with
> RebindableSyntax
>
>
>
> Jan’s ques
-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Richard
Eisenberg
Sent: 28 November 2016 22:30
To: Jan Bracker
Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: Help needed: Restrictions of proc-notation with RebindableSyntax
Jan’s question is a good one, but I don’t know enough about procs to be able to
answer. I do know that
Jan’s question is a good one, but I don’t know enough about procs to be able to
answer. I do know that the answer can be found by looking for uses of
`tcSyntaxOp` in the TcArrows module but I just can’t translate it all to
source Haskell, having roughly 0 understanding of this end of the lan
16 matches
Mail list logo
