Isaac Dupree:
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones:
Nothing deep. Just that "=" means so many things that it seemed
better to use a different notation.
Also, using "=" would have entailed significant changes to GHC's
parser. Type constraints are in the same syntactic category
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones:
Nothing deep. Just that "=" means so many things that it seemed
better to use a different notation.
Also, using "=" would have entailed significant changes to GHC's
parser. Type constraints are in the same syntactic category as types
and ty
Simon Peyton-Jones:
Nothing deep. Just that "=" means so many things that it seemed
better to use a different notation.
Also, using "=" would have entailed significant changes to GHC's
parser. Type constraints are in the same syntactic category as types
and types can appear as part of ex
Am Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2007 17:05 schrieb Simon Peyton-Jones:
> […]
> Anyway, while on this subject, I am considering making the following
> change:
>
> make all operator symbols into type constructors
> (currently they are type variables)
This would be highly problematic!
Conc
Am Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2007 13:43 schrieb Luis Cabellos:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question, what's the best way to program?
> - put all the signatures in the Haskell Code?
> - Only put the type signatures needed to compile (like monomorphism errors
> or ambiguous signature)?
>
> Until now, I prefer t
Hello Simon,
Wednesday, December 5, 2007, 7:05:22 PM, you wrote:
> Anyway, while on this subject, I am considering making the following change:
> make all operator symbols into type constructors
> (currently they are type variables)
i like it. will the same apply to the type func
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
| > Nothing deep. Just that "=" means so many things that it seemed better
| > to use a different notation.
| >
|
| How about ==? Only one meaning so far, and that both on the term level and
| equivalent to the constraint
I'm quite happy with "~"! It's sufficiently di
| > Nothing deep. Just that "=" means so many things that it seemed better
| > to use a different notation.
| >
|
| How about ==? Only one meaning so far, and that both on the term level and
| equivalent to the constraint
I'm quite happy with "~"! It's sufficiently different from "=" that someon
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Nothing deep. Just that "=" means so many things that it seemed better
> to use a different notation.
>
How about ==? Only one meaning so far, and that both on the term level and
equivalent to the constraint.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ivanova is a
Nothing deep. Just that "=" means so many things that it seemed better to use
a different notation.
S
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
| Isaac Dupree
| Sent: 04 December 2007 15:59
| To: Jan-Willem Maessen
| Cc: Glasgow-haskell-users@
On Dec 5, 2007 7:43 AM, Luis Cabellos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question, what's the best way to program?
> - put all the signatures in the Haskell Code?
> - Only put the type signatures needed to compile (like monomorphism
> errors or ambiguous signature)?
>
> Until now, I p
Hi,
I have a question, what's the best way to program?
- put all the signatures in the Haskell Code?
- Only put the type signatures needed to compile (like monomorphism errors
or ambiguous signature)?
Until now, I prefer the second one, but when I use the -Wall option, there's
a lot of complain
12 matches
Mail list logo
