I'd like to ask the following: does there exist a draft of a Haskell-2
Manifesto, that lists the design goals of this new language?
I've seen many wish list items that are "bottom-up": they advocate
and/or denounce some specific set of language features. This was
appropriate for the resolutio
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 01:19:18 -0500
Leon Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this particular case, pretty much any Haskell compiler will
> automatically perform optimizations that will transform the first
> definition into the second definition. So, the first definition will
> create the same ob
> I'm curious: how many people have actually written a program in
> Cayenne? How many people have written programs that made significant
> use of the dependent typing? Has anybody tried to teach a programming
> class using Cayenne?
I'll admit to not having yet written something in Cayenne, but
Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
> >
> > I agree; Haskell 2 should have existential (and universal) types. I
> > also think it should have both extensible records and extensible
> > variants. (See the following paper for more information on these.
> > TREX is an implementation of half of this syst
"S. Alexander Jacobson" wrote:
>
> Do existential types makes algebraic types obsolete?
> I mean there seems to be a large semantic overlap between the two
> concepts.
> Are there contexts where you need algebraic types because existential
> types won't do the job? Wouldn't everybody be happie
Do existential types makes algebraic types obsolete?
I mean there seems to be a large semantic overlap between the two
concepts.
For example, once you can implement lists with just the product type (,),
why bother with algebraic types?
Arguably Boolean is a natural algebraic type, but if we patt
Asking on existential types, i wrote
>> It is required to organise a table with the key
>> data K = K1 | K2 | K3 ...
>> to put/extract there the items of different types, say, 'a' and
>> ('a','b') as well. Is this possible?
>> Understanding nothing in
On 18 Feb 1999, Carl R. Witty wrote:
[Snip]
> I fear my previous response to this message was a little hasty and
> overly forceful. Let me try again.
>
> I think dependent types are great; I'd love to have the most powerful
> type system possible. However, I'm also very wary of undecidable typ
>
> I agree; Haskell 2 should have existential (and universal) types. I
> also think it should have both extensible records and extensible
> variants. (See the following paper for more information on these.
> TREX is an implementation of half of this system; it has the
> extensible records but
> Actually, I think Lennart means PEPM '99.
Indeed! Just because it was colocated with POPL99 doesn't make
it the same conference. :-)
-- Lennart
Lars Lundgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 18 Feb 1999, Carl R. Witty wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> > I fear my previous response to this message was a little hasty and
> > overly forceful. Let me try again.
> >
> > I think dependent types are great; I'd love to have the most powerful
> > type syste
Lennart Augustsson writes:
> > OK, I'm curious. Two people replied that C++ has undecidable type
> > checking. I was not aware of this (although I can't say I'm too
> > surprised); do you have a reference?
>
> It's actually the template processing that can loop, but it is
> sort of part of the
On 18-Feb-1999, Carl R. Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I'm curious. Two people replied that C++ has undecidable type
> checking. I was not aware of this (although I can't say I'm too
> surprised); do you have a reference?
Not really. I believe this has been mentioned on comp.std.c++,
b
> OK, I'm curious. Two people replied that C++ has undecidable type
> checking. I was not aware of this (although I can't say I'm too
> surprised); do you have a reference?
It's actually the template processing that can loop, but it is
sort of part of the type checking.
You can find an article
"S.D.Mechveliani" wrote:
> With existentials, i hoped to achieve the effect of simplification,
> something like ...
> Just d -> (dn , d)
> _ -> (s:dn, s)
> where
>
> > My biggest wishes for Haskell-2 are existential types
> > and the TREX extensible record system from Hugs 1.3.
> > I've found these two extensions *extremely* handy.
>
> I agree; Haskell 2 should have existential (and universal) types. I
> also think it should have both extensible records and
>I'd like to see the numeric class hierarchy re-organized
>along lines suggested by modern algebra. That is,
>it should be organized in terms of Groups, Rings,
>Fields, etc., instead of Integral, Fractional, Real,
>etc. I have no idea how this should look exactly,
>so I'll just request it and l
Don't be shy about using lists when writing Haskell Code. Since Haskell is
lazy, lists are often consumed as they are created, so in many cases they
do not use extra memory. Lists really are the key to clarity AND efficiency.
These definitions are the most efficient of those proposed for the pr
18 matches
Mail list logo
