Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:22:13 -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> let dynamic
> ?x = 3
> ?y = ?y+?x
> in
> ...
>
> * 'dynamic' is a special-id, only significant immediately following
> a let.
So 'dynamic' triggers the layout rule af
Erik Meijer, John Launchbury and I discussed the syntax of implicit
parameters at WG2.8 last week.
We emerged with agreement on the following: instead of 'with' use
let dynamic
?x = 3
?y = ?y+?x
in
...
* 'dynamic' is a special-id, on
> [Incidentally, if I did control Hugs, I wouldn't make the suggested
> change to "dlet"/"with" at this point. Marcin says I have no "deep
> reasons" ... Hmm, I don't know about "deep", but I do have reasons
> for this, both technical and pragmatic. But I'm not going to go into
> detail because
| Marcin Kowalczyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
| > I would like to replace "with" and "dlet" with "let". But SimonPJ
| > said he won't do it in ghc unless Hugs does it too, and Mark P Jones
| > said he won't do it in Hugs now (without deep reasons: no
| > people/hours to do that, and no plans to r
I wrote:
> eval (Let v e1 e2) = eval e2 with ?env = (v, eval e1) : ?env
[Blush] Andy Gill pointed out that this example was ambiguous because
it wasn't clear if I wanted this "Let" to be recursive or non-recursive.
My intention was that this was a non-recursive let.
--
Alastair Reid
___
> Surely we could use *zero* extra identifiers by writing:
>
> (ia) let ?x = foo in bar
> (iia) bar where ?x = foo
>
> i.e., s/dlet/let/ and s/with/where/ .
>
> I thought this was mentioned at the Haskell Implementors' Meeting.
I believe that is the favoured change amongst those that want
[sorry for duplication; I missed out hugs-bugs before]
> Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> > [...]
> > 1. [happy]. Use 'let'
> > 2. [consent]. Use 'dlet' or 'with'
> > 3. [hate] Use both 'dlet' and 'with'
> >
> > Would the Hugs folk be willing to adopt (2)?
Please correct me if I'm wrong:
The two
> Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> > [...]
> > 1. [happy]. Use 'let'
> > 2. [consent]. Use 'dlet' or 'with'
> > 3. [hate] Use both 'dlet' and 'with'
> >
> > Would the Hugs folk be willing to adopt (2)?
Please correct me if I'm wrong:
The two syntaxes are:
(i) let ?x = foo in bar
(ii) bar with
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> [...]
> 1. [happy]. Use 'let'
> 2. [consent]. Use 'dlet' or 'with'
> 3. [hate] Use both 'dlet' and 'with'
>
> Would the Hugs folk be willing to adopt (2)?
I'm getting a little bit lost in this thread: Everybody seems to
agree that stealing identifiers is bad, steali
"Jeffrey R. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> "Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
>
> > "Jeffrey R. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> >
> > > > Lack of consensus => the status quo stays.
> > > >
> > > > My order of preference:
> > > >
> > > > 1. [happy]. Use 'let'
> > > > 2. [consent]. Use 'd
"Jeffrey R. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> > Lack of consensus => the status quo stays.
> >
> > My order of preference:
> >
> > 1. [happy]. Use 'let'
> > 2. [consent]. Use 'dlet' or 'with'
> > 3. [hate] Use both 'dlet' and 'with'
> >
> > Would the Hugs folk be willing to adopt (2)?
>
> Th
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote:
> "Jeffrey R. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>
> > > Lack of consensus => the status quo stays.
> > >
> > > My order of preference:
> > >
> > > 1. [happy]. Use 'let'
> > > 2. [consent]. Use 'dlet' or 'with'
> > > 3. [hate] Use both 'dlet' and 'with'
> > >
>
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> I only added 'with' because I did not want to steal *two* new keywords.
> One is bad enough! I proposed using 'let' (not dlet), with the '?' to
> distinguish dynamic from lexical bindings, but did not achieve
> consensus.
>
I only added `with' to GHC originally beca
I only added 'with' because I did not want to steal *two* new keywords.
One is bad enough! I proposed using 'let' (not dlet), with the '?' to
distinguish dynamic from lexical bindings, but did not achieve
consensus.
Lack of consensus => the status quo stays.
My order of preference:
1. [happ
Marcin Kowalczyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> I would like to replace "with" and "dlet" with "let". But SimonPJ
> said he won't do it in ghc unless Hugs does it too, and Mark P Jones
> said he won't do it in Hugs now (without deep reasons: no
> people/hours to do that, and no plans to release ne
Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:41:45 -0700, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> As I was not involved in that discussion, why should the keyword
> "with" not be introduced?
There are at least two libraries in hslibs which would like to use
'with' as an identifier.
Foreign currently uses 'withObject',
Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:31:07 -0600 (MDT), Alastair Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Can the GHC people, the Hugs people and the implicit parameter
> designers come to some sort of agreement and implement the result?
I would like to replace "with" and "dlet" with "let". But SimonPJ said
he won't
As I was not involved in that discussion, why should the keyword "with" not
be introduced?
Just curious,
Erik
- Original Message -
From: "Alastair Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:31 AM
Subject: Syntax for implicit
18 matches
Mail list logo
