On 4 Oct, Chris Dornan wrote:
> As a plain, ordinary punter could I ask for one of two things:
>
>1) More or less kill Int as a general-purpose type and adopt unbounded
> integers (Integer) as the standard integral type. If you do this then
> please put
>
> type Int =
> No semantic objection, but GHC doesn't implement them because of
> the lack of a decent syntax.
OK, I suspected as much. I think I shall go off and try to
craft a syntax for a "logical" such extensions, so it can be shot
down in more detail!
The only snags I can think of off the top of my he
[ this reply was slightly delayed because I accidentally sent it to just
Fergus instead of the whole list... ]
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The query quoted below, about heap usage in a 5-line Haskell program,
> has remained unanswered for two weeks.
Ok, I'll give it a shot
> Hi all. Was there ever any sort of consensus about whether pattern
> guards ought to be "nestable", or not?
>
> And if not, was there some semantic objection to this, was the syntax
> just considered to Unspeakable to be spoken of, or is the feature
> just largely redundant? (I think you can
