"Sigbjorn Finne (Intl Vendor)" wrote:
Is it worth adding something like `yield' to the Concurrent
API? I'm unconvinced, but don't feel strongly about it. If
there are others that also think that it should be supported,
let me know, and I'll change my mind :-)
Here are two reasons:
(1)
George Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Sigbjorn Finne (Intl Vendor)" wrote:
Is it worth adding something like `yield' to the Concurrent
API? I'm unconvinced, but don't feel strongly about it. If
there are others that also think that it should be supported,
let me know, and I'll
Will this change be compatible with the first class (extensible?)
records work?
I know that first class records will not be part of Haskell98, but
it would be nice if Haskell2000 (or whatever) could be close to the
stable language of H98.
Can we expect first class records in the near
Kevin Atkinson wrote:
-- If the kind of an object is Cont2_ - ie then its
-- Ix type is the Fst type of ie if ie has a type Fst
Ix (Cont2_ ie) = Fst ie
-- If the kind of an object is Cont2_ - ie then its
-- El type is the Snd type of ie if ie has a type Snd
El (Cont2_ ie)
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion about
transformation rules. There is clearly something inteeresting
going on here!
There is clearly a huge spectrum of possibilities, ranging from
nothing at all to a full theorem-proving system. In adding rules
to GHC I'm trying to
David Barton wrote:
What began with a fairly limited, and practical, suggestion on Simon's
part to assist the compiler with optimizations and transformations
that are valid in some cases and not in others has blossomed into a
search for a full logical language, with inference, proof
I think that John Darlington's group at Imperial College were to first
to use rule driven program transformation in their various skelton/coordination
language parallelising compilers.
Here, Tore Bratvold used simple higher order function/composition
distribution transformation rules in his
Frank A. Christoph [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Sergey Mechveliani wrote:
Adding *rules* to language would NOT cause scripting graphics via term
rewriting logic. I suppose, you know this.
If you do not set {rules..} in your program, you would never notice
they exist.
Huh? Scripting
A question about Haskell 98: is this legal:
data T = T1 Int Int Int
| T2 Float Float Float
f (T1 {}) = True
f (T2 {}) = False
The point is that T is not declared using
record syntax, but f nevertheless uses record
syntax in the pattern match to mean "T1
