On July 6, 2012 11:49:23 Tyson Whitehead wrote:
> Currently it depends on the depth of this new level of indentation relative
> to all the groupings started on that line. I think most people would
> expect it to just apply to the last grouping though. That is
>
> where { f x = do {
> stmt1
>
Hi all,
Recently I am tuning one of our incomplete libraries that uses FFI.
After dumping the interface file I realized strictness/demand analysis
failed for imported foreign functions---that is, they are not inferred
to be strict in their arguments. In my naive understanding all
imported foreign
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> try with -ddump-rule-firings -dverbose-core2core -ddump-occur-anal
> -ddump-inlinings.
>
> You'll get a lot of output ,but you may either see (a) output stops but
> computer gets hot, (b) output goes on and on.
>
> use HEAD if you can
Whoops, my earlier answer forgot to copy mailing lists... I would love to
see \of, but I really don't think this is important enough to make case
sometimes introduce layout and other times not. If it's going to obfuscate
the lexical syntax like that, I'd rather just stick with \x->case x of.
On Ju
On 05/07/2012, Mikhail Vorozhtsov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> After 21 months of occasional arguing the lambda-case proposal(s) is in
> danger of being buried under its own trac ticket comments. We need fresh
> blood to finally reach an agreement on the syntax. Read the wiki
> page[1], take a look at the tic
On July 6, 2012 05:25:15 Simon Marlow wrote:
> > Why not just let enclosed scopes be less indented than their outer ones?
Let me be entirely clear about what I was thinking about. The third case for
the layout mapping in Section 9.3 of the report is
L ({n}:ts) (m:ms) = { : (L ts (n:
try with -ddump-rule-firings -dverbose-core2core -ddump-occur-anal
-ddump-inlinings.
You'll get a lot of output ,but you may either see (a) output stops but
computer gets hot, (b) output goes on and on.
use HEAD if you can
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: glasgow-haskell-users-b
On 05/07/2012 20:31, Tyson Whitehead wrote:
On July 5, 2012 10:42:53 Mikhail Vorozhtsov wrote:
After 21 months of occasional arguing the lambda-case proposal(s) is in
danger of being buried under its own trac ticket comments. We need fresh
blood to finally reach an agreement on the syntax. Read
Christopher Done writes:
> P.S. \if then … else …?
btw, http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/If-then-else
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Twan,
The 0-ary version you proposed actually works even nicer with \of.
foo'' = case () of
() | quux -> ...
| quaffle -> ...
| otherwise -> ...
Starting from the above legal haskell multi-way if, we can, switch to
foo' = case of
| quux -> ...
| quaffle -> ...
| otherwise -> .
On 07/05/2012 09:42 PM, Mikhail Vorozhtsov wrote:
Hi.
After 21 months of occasional arguing the lambda-case proposal(s) is in
danger of being buried under its own trac ticket comments. We need fresh
blood to finally reach an agreement on the syntax. Read the wiki
page[1], take a look at the tick
On 07/06/2012 02:31 AM, Tyson Whitehead wrote:
On July 5, 2012 10:42:53 Mikhail Vorozhtsov wrote:
After 21 months of occasional arguing the lambda-case proposal(s) is in
danger of being buried under its own trac ticket comments. We need fresh
blood to finally reach an agreement on the syntax. Re
Oh, neat. I guess it does. :) I'll hack that into my grammar when I get into
work tomorrow.
My main point with that observation is it cleanly allows for multiple argument
\of without breaking the intuition you get from how of already works/looks or
requiring you to refactor subsequent lines, t
13 matches
Mail list logo
