Re: Standard Haskell

(This is a follow-up to my last message regarding the rushing of the final version of Haskell.) Incidentally, with regard to features appropriate for Standard Haskell, I would say that explicit quantification (which someone mentioned) and first-class modules should be left out. Not because I don

Re: Standard Haskell

(On a more serious note,) I agree with the numerous people who support the inclusion of (in order from most essential to least) multi-parameter classes, state threads, standardization of concurrency features and foreign language interfaces. For at least the first three of these, I think they shou

Re: Standard Haskell

Sigbjorn Finne wrote: [in connection with the Standard Haskell discussion] > If nothing else, it could force people to think twice about designing > a new language :-) Yeah, we don't need anything new. In fact, I've been thinking of an alternate way of standardizing Haskell. It is described bel

sorting & graph traversal. Reply.

Zooko Journeyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > ... >> Honestly, would you use a language which does not allow to >> program a depth-first graph traversal in O(n). > Ah. I didn't realize it was that bad. > ... > But I've yet to implement a graph structure of any sort (as far > as I can remember

Re: what's wrong with instance C a => D a. Reply

Sergey Mechveliani wrote: : As to `instance D a', : it is not a loss. Because `instance D a' is the same as : `class D a' - supplied with the default definition. For example, : the illegal declaration pair : :classC a => D a where d :: a -> a : :instan

Re: RE: how about main :: IO Int

> Nope, returning from main is defined by the C standard to be equivalent > to calling exit(), as if main() where invoked as `exit(main(argc, argv))'. Well, it might be standardized, but I've been bitten by implementations that generate a random exit code if you just return 0 from main. This was

Re: Standard Haskell

At 07:10 97/08/22, David Barton wrote: >Let's not even *talk* about "official" standardization until we get >Haskell 1.5 (nominally, "Standard" Haskell) done. I believe we should keep the First Amendment. :-) Hans Aberg * AMS member: Listing

Re: Standard Haskell

John said: > >The point has also been made that Haskell 1.4 lacks some features that are >already quite well understood and will be sorely missed for serious >applications --- multi-parameter classes, state threads, existential and >universal types. If this is the last revision then the most impo

Re: Standard Haskell

Nothing to do with the content of the language (Standard) Haskell per se, but if the next revision is going to be the final product of the Haskell Committee, I'd like to encourage its members to at some stage write something up about the decade-long design process. A design rationale would be gr

Re: Standard Haskell

At 10:37 97/08/22, John Hughes wrote: > What >we're proposing is simple to make one more revision --- call it Haskell 1.5 if >you like --- and then not to make any more. ... >The point has also been made that Haskell 1.4 lacks some features that are >already quite well understood and will be sorel

what's wrong with instance C a => D a. Reply

Christian Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes (I format the text) > The report says explicit that instance declarations like > >instance C (a,a) where ..., > > or for (Int,a) or for [[a]] > > are not allowed. I tried to understand this by thinking these > types are too c

Re: RE: how about main :: IO Int

> Isn't this a Unix-specific convention, to treat the value returned by > main() > as the exit value of the process? Yes, and it only works in some flavours of Unix. The proper way to exit a C program is to call exit(). The proper way to exit a Haskell program is to call exitWith. -- L

Standard Haskell

Quite a lot of discussion has concerned standardization in the sense of standards bodies --- in fact I'm a little sorry we used the word `Standard'! Perhaps we should have called the fixed design `Haskell Omega' instead! What we're proposing is simple to make one more revision --- call it Haskell

Re: Standard Haskell

Hans Aberg writes: At 07:10 97/08/22, David Barton wrote: >Let's not even *talk* about "official" standardization until we get >Haskell 1.5 (nominally, "Standard" Haskell) done. I believe we should keep the First Amendment. :-) First Amendment? Heck, if you even *think* about it,

Re: what's wrong with instance C a => D a

> The report says explicit that instance declarations like > instance C (a,a) where ..., or for (Int,a) or for [[a]] are not > I now only would like to know why this design decission was made, > are there any problems with the instance declarations I have in mind? You might find "Type classes -

Re: Standard Haskell

I *strongly* agree with John. Let's not even *talk* about "official" standardization until we get Haskell 1.5 (nominally, "Standard" Haskell) done. Then, and only then, will the question of "official" standardization become (perhaps!) relevant. Dave Barto

Re: how about main :: IO Int

Christian Sievers wrote: > Hello, I just wondered if it was ever considered to let the main function > have the type IO Int, in order to let the haskell programm be able to > return an exit code to the calling environment, as C's int main(...) > does. I think real programms sometimes want to ex

Re: simplicity and seriousness

Zooko Journeyman, you wrote: > > Anyway... All this came out because I saw someone saying "We > need to add all these features in order to make Haskell useful > for serious programming!". That may well be true, depending on > what the features actually are, but it strikes me as ironic > since

Re: Standard Haskell

David Barton wrote: > Hans Aberg writes: > >I do not think that the Pascal standardizing model is being used >anymore; instead one schedules a new revision, say every five years >(this is used for C++). There is already an application put in for >ISO/ANSI standardizing of Java, an

Re: Standard Haskell

Hans Aberg, you wrote: > I would rather think that the reason that functional languages are not > used is the lack of an ISO/ANSI standard, plus the lack of standard ways of > making cooperation with other, imperative languages. Of these two reasons, I don't think the first has much weight at a

Re: how about main :: IO Int

Christian, In Haskell you can use exitWith :: ExitCode -> IO a from the System library, so you don't need the program to "return" a "Int" (this is not a esthetically pleasing in C!). The IO a allows the operation to be used in any IO monad context, not just IO (). Regards, Kevin At 6:40 pm 21/