Hello,
while we are voting here, I kind of like this proposal, so +1 for me.
I understand that some of the examples look strange to Haskell old-timers
but, as Joachim points out, the behavior is very consistent. Besides, the
"Less Obvious Examples" were selected so that they are, well, less ob
Hi,
the layout language options are hard to find (at least in the user
guide). Therefore I try to give an overview here. The relevant options
I've found by using ghc-7.10.3 with option --supported-languages are:
NondecreasingIndentation
DoAndIfThenElse
RelaxedLayout
AlternativeLayoutRule
Alterna
-1 for same reasons.
On 8 July 2016 at 14:00, Henrik Nilsson
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Joachim Breitner wrote:
>
> > Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 13:09 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne:
> > > I don't think so: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc
> > /wiki/ArgumentDo#Bl
> > [...]
> > Where is the outer set of par
Hi all,
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 13:09 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne:
> > I don't think so: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc
> /wiki/ArgumentDo#Bl
> [...]
> Where is the outer set of parenthesis coming from?
>
> This is all not related to the ArgumentDo notation. Note tha
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 13:09 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne:
> I don't think so: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ArgumentDo#Bl
> ockasaLHS explicit states that
>
> do f &&& g
> x
>
> parses as
>
> (f &&& g) x
Correct
> , so
>
> foobar
> do f &&& g
> x
>
> pa
2016-07-08 12:28 GMT+02:00 Joachim Breitner :
> Currenlty,
>
> foobar
> (do f &&& g)
> x
>
> calls foobar with two arguments, while
>
> (do f &&& g)
> x
>
> calls (f &&& g) with one argument. The ArgumentDo proposal does not change
> that, only that the parenthesis become r
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 11:32 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne:
> 2016-07-08 9:09 GMT+02:00 Joachim Breitner :
> > Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 08:35 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne:
> > > foobar
> > > do f &&& g
> > > x
> > [...] Only with the proposed addition, it becomes an argument to f
2016-07-08 9:09 GMT+02:00 Joachim Breitner :
> Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 08:35 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne:
> >foobar
> > do f &&& g
> > x
> [...] Only with the proposed addition, it becomes an argument to foobar.
> [...]
>
Huh? Nope! The Wiki page explicitly says that
do f &&
Surely layout can bite you:
f
do
x
do
y
and I'm having difficulties to find the documentation for the various
layout options.
But this is no argument against this proposal!
Improper use of white spaces can always be used to obfuscate code!
Style guides are important. Furthermore, a wr
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 08.07.2016, 08:35 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne:
> foobar
> do f &&& g
> x
>
> Should the x now be an argument of foobar (as it is currently) or the
> "do"? If it is not an argument of the "do", suddenly things get very
> context-dependent. Computers are good at hand
10 matches
Mail list logo
