> I find that this limits considerably its usage. Can't the Bin representations
> of Char, Int, Float and Double (and maybe more) be standardized?
I think Haskell Bin stuff is braindamaged and rather useless.
I suggest we remove from Haskell until we figure out how to
do what that tries to do i
>Thomas Johnsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> suggests allowing guards in
>list comprehensions:
>For example, one cannot write
> [ | (a,b)|a==b <- blablabigexpression ]
>but one has to write
> [ | (a,b) <- blablabigexpression, a==b ]
Yes, let's have guards in list comprehensions bu
Here's another little cleanup item:
Currently, guarded patterns are not allowed i list comprensions.
I see no reason for this restriction, so I propose that we
allow them.
For example, one cannot write
[ | (a,b)|a==b <- blablabigexpression ]
but one has to write
[ |
I propose that we do the following cleanup in the lexical
syntax for operator symbols:
Allow - and ~ inside operator symbols (and not just as first
characters in them).
Currently, e.g. -+ and ~= are allowed, but +- and =~ are not.
This seems a bit arbitrary to me.
-- Thomas
> I find that this limits considerably its usage. Can't the Bin representations
> of Char, Int, Float and Double (and maybe more) be standardized?
I think Haskell Bin stuff is braindamaged and rather useless.
I suggest we remove from Haskell until we figure out how to
do what tha
The Haskell Report says: "Binary mode I/O ensures transparency *within*
an implementation".
I find that this limits considerably its usage. Can't the Bin representations
of Char, Int, Float and Double (and maybe more) be standardized?
Ideally, I would like these datatypes to be represented on
Currently, guarded patterns are not allowed i list comprensions.
I see no reason for this restriction, so I propose that we
allow them.
For example, one cannot write
[ | (a,b)|a==b <- blablabigexpression ]
but one has to write
[ | (a,b) <- blablabi
