On 07-Nov-1998, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Another reason is that allowing definitions to be split up
> >without any special syntax indicating this would harm readability.
...
> This is *exectly* the reasoning I am opposed to. It is not to the language
> designer to decide for me wh
In order to get around the problem of a type being able to have multiple
instances of the same class, I propose a new keyword, `instancetype'.
The
semantics of this keyword would fall somewhere between `type' and
`newtype'.
That is, it doesn't actually create a new type, but it isn't just an
alias
> This is *exectly* the reasoning I am opposed to. It is not to the language
> designer to decide for me what is readable of not!
But what if someone else has to read your programs?
Maybe a uniform style isn't so horrible.
-- Lennart
PS. Or maybe you're firmly in the Microsludge camp now
w
On 06-Nov-1998, Erik Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> >[...]
> >[ describes that he wants interleave the definitions of several functions ]
> >[ but Haskell does not allow this ]
> >[...]
> >This restriction is very frustrating because I want to add names to a
> >function lookup t
On 7 Nov, Erik Meijer wrote:
> >Another reason is that allowing definitions to be split up
> >without any special syntax indicating this would harm readability.
[...]
>
> This is *exectly* the reasoning I am opposed to. It is not to the language
> designer to decide for me what is readable
>Another reason is that allowing definitions to be split up
>without any special syntax indicating this would harm readability.
>If I see a definition, I can't be sure it's complete without
>examining the whole module.
>
>Since the order of clauses affects the semantics, I don't think
>it would be
Hi Alex,
>Ok, then I am officially complaining about the elimination of ++ and
>MonadPlus. It is a much more radical change than changing default
>default and it will break a lot of MY code at very least.
>
>The existing implementation in hugs allows you to write extremely concise
>and clean cod
