Hello everyone,
Recently there has been a fair bit of discussion[1,2] around the
mechanisms by which proposed changes to GHC are evaluated. While we have
something of a formal proposal protocol [3], it is not clearly
documented, inconsistently applied, and may be failing to serve a
significant
continuing my thought,
There was a medical student, Jonathan, working here at True North.
He was really into macrobiotics and studied with the great Denny Waxman.
Jonathan told me legends of the great George Oshawa who traveled the world
as a sort of super human meeting with people and
Well Iavor likes it. (see 2 below)
Anyway, you know I'm really puzzled with the question of how to spend time.
Maybe you can help me.
In any case, it's such a lucky thing to have some to spend.
Toshia and I are watching season 4 of Game of Thrones. I'm so addicted.
I'm also addicted to speed
On Saturday, July 9, 2016, Henrik Nilsson
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On 07/09/2016 08:09 AM, C Maeder wrote:
>
>> The asymmetry that you mention is already apparent for (Haskell98) infix
>> expressions, i.e. when "composing" lambda- or if-expression:
>>
>> (if c then
Hi all,
On 07/09/2016 08:09 AM, C Maeder wrote:
The asymmetry that you mention is already apparent for (Haskell98) infix
expressions, i.e. when "composing" lambda- or if-expression:
(if c then f else g) . \ x -> h x
Parentheses around the last argument of "." do not matter, but
parentheses
On 07/09/2016 09:09 AM, C Maeder wrote:
> The asymmetry that you mention is already apparent for (Haskell98) infix
> expressions, i.e. when "composing" lambda- or if-expression:
>
> (if c then f else g) . \ x -> h x
>
> Parentheses around the last argument of "." do not matter, but
>
The asymmetry that you mention is already apparent for (Haskell98) infix
expressions, i.e. when "composing" lambda- or if-expression:
(if c then f else g) . \ x -> h x
Parentheses around the last argument of "." do not matter, but
parentheses around the first argument make a real difference