type of minimumBy

To my > When processing this tree, it would be natural to write in each node >m + b and min [m,b]. > > The former is "necessary" due to the infix-binary tradition. > The latter uses [,] because it is good to have one function min for a > list and for the two eleme

RE: static evaluation of dynamics thing

Sergey Mechveliani wrote: >For example, the static error report for > if {-# static x #-} then error ... > else y >takes pace only when the compiler proves that `else' never performs, >when everything is computed "lazily". > >If only I u

Re: gcd :: [a] -> a

"S.D.Mechveliani" wrote: > When processing this tree, it would be natural to write in each node >m + b and min [m,b]. > > The former is "necessary" due to the infix-binary tradition. > The latter uses [,] because it is good to have one function min for a > list an

RE: static evaluation of dynamics thing

>to tell the compiler 'evaluate this to a static value'. I'd suggest >doing it via a pseudo-function > static :: a -> a >which behaved like the identity function, except that it evaluated >its argument rather eagerly at compile time. AFAIK eagerness isn't addressed by the Haskell language

RE: static evaluation of dynamics thing

Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: >a function with an assert that always fails >is indeed a good candidate for a compile-time error message. When I developed compilers for Fortran and C++, from time to time we would get reports from customers that the compiler had failed to diagnose an error in their cod

Re: import List(..) ?

> > Sun, 21 May 2000 17:26:13 +1000, Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > On a related note, Hugs and ghc both allow the following module > > module Bar(List(..)) where > type List = [] > > without complaint, but according to the Haskell report (5.2) the > syntax `(..)' should only be u

Re: import List(..) ?

On 21-May-2000, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sun, 21 May 2000 17:26:13 +1000, Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > > > But being able to import and/or re-export such symbols is necessary > > if you want to be able to implement an alternative prelude. > > No: th

"static" and "assert"

To my | Here is some strange question: | how to force the compiler to evaluate some things more statically | and to convert some run-time errors into the compile-time ones? Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > Not strange at all. It would be quite reasonable to have some way >

Re: gcd :: [a] -> a

Sun, 21 May 2000 11:53:39 +0400 (MSD), S.D.Mechveliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > The economy of names is more important. Convenience of programming is important too. Many Prelude functions are unnecessary, but are convenient. (++) and concat are not needed (you can write flip (foldr (:)) for

Re: import List(..) ?

Sun, 21 May 2000 17:26:13 +1000, Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > But being able to import and/or re-export such symbols is necessary > if you want to be able to implement an alternative prelude. No: they can be simply always available, just as \ and let. Standard Prelude has to be

gcd :: [a] -> a

On my proposal for minBy, gcd ... :: [a] -> a and remark on +, && ... being the exceptions Matt Harden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 19 May 2000 >> (+), (&&) ... are different. Because they have classical tradition >> to be applied as binary infix operations. >> And gcd, min, max, lcm

Re: import List(..) ?

On 21-May-2000, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sat, 20 May 2000 13:13:22 -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > > > Explicit lists [a,b,c] > > List comprehensions > > Numeric constants (1 means 'fromInteger 1') > > do notation > > > > Here