Re: type of minimumBy

"S.D.Mechveliani" wrote: > I do not feel aggressive against Prelude. So you're not advocating eliminating the current min and max functions (and others), and leaving only list-based versions? > Concerningfoldl1 min, > there is a little spot that it tends to run i

arrow notation

I've updated my proposal for a sugared notation for arrows: http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~ross/arrows/sugar.html with a very rough preprocessor for the new constructs, based on hsparser (which was a great help). None of this will make sense unless you've read John Hughes's arrows paper. A

Re: import List(..)

On 22-May-2000, Koen Claessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think there are two separate issues here: ... > 2. Syntactic sugar which is translated away using prelude > functions. ... > Issue number 2 is completely different and unrelated. Note > that this also includes normal prelude funct

Re: import List(..) ?

> On 20-May-2000, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course, that doesn't solve the problem! Sergey essentially wants to > > replace the entire prelude, special syntax and all. There are lots > > of small but important things under the heading of special syntax: If I recall co

Re: import List(..) // fromInteger etc.

Jerzy Karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't want to replace the entire Prelude. But I work with > non-standard (*) mathematical objects, and this will continue for > some time. I'm probably missing a lot of obviousities, but if this is indeed the most common desire, why is it so

RE: import List(..)

Hello all! There has been a discussion going on about if the list constructor operators (:, [], and type []) should be dealt with in the same way as with other function and type names. I think there are two separate issues here: 1. Introduction of special syntactic identifiers for:

Re: import List(..) // fromInteger etc.

Fergus Henderson quoting Simon P J: > > ... Sergey essentially wants to > > replace the entire prelude, special syntax and all. There are lots > > of small but important things under the heading of special syntax: > > > > Explicit lists [a,b,c] > > List comprehensions > > Numer

Re: import List(..) ?

Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think this would be too hard to implement in GHC. Now I think > about it, it's rather attractive. I wonder what other people think? > Perhaps {-# SYNTAX #-} is a bit noisy -- but Haskell's philosophy is > to signal very clearly when someth