Re: RFC: Syntax for implicit parameter bindings

Hi all, How about the following syntax: (addBase 5 | ?base = 10) This is quite unlike from other binding constructs in Haskell, so maybe something more similar to list comprehension would be better: (addBase 5 | ?base <- 10) Cheers, Sebastien

Re: RFC: Syntax for implicit parameter bindings

On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 01:33:54PM -0800, Ashley Yakeley wrote: > At 2002-02-04 01:45, Koen Claessen wrote: > > > | addBase{?base=7} 5 > > > >I like this! It is the least polluting syntax of all. > > Hmm... you have braces without following a keyword. I think in all other > cases, braces follow

New haskell.org policies

Our switch to a new server for haskell.org is complete. We are making a few changes in the way this machine is administered - instead of handing out the root password we are now using sudo instead. Anyone who used needs root access and is not a sudoer can contact me and I'll fix things. Some ch

Re: RFC: Syntax for implicit parameter bindings

At 2002-02-04 01:45, Koen Claessen wrote: > | addBase{?base=7} 5 > >I like this! It is the least polluting syntax of all. Hmm... you have braces without following a keyword. I think in all other cases, braces follow a keyword (where, let, do, of). -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA __

RE: Another Implicit Parameter Infelicity

At 2002-02-04 02:01, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: >Neither GHC nor Hugs allow a polymorphic type variable >(the argument of Maybe) to be instantiated to a polymorphic >type. Systems which do are called 'impredicative' (or is it the >other way around?). Going impredicative has big negative >implic

Mondrian & Haskell for .NET release version

For those of you interested, Mondrian and Haskell for .NET are available for the release version of Microsoft's .NET platform - see . Mondrian is a simple functional language designed to inter-work with OO languages, and integrates well into .NET and with other

Re: Implicit Parameters

On Monday 04 February 2002 02:25 am, John Hughes wrote: > Not so fast! Proposing a "solution" means this is regarded as a "problem"! > But what is to say that the first behaviour is "right" in any general > sense? > > The important thing is that the language semantics is clear, and this is a > sem

Re: Implicit Parameters

On Monday 04 February 2002 01:58 am, Koen Claessen wrote: > Hi all, > > Now we are talking about implicit parameters, let us take up > the following problem with them on the Haskell mailing list > too. > > [implicit parameters are not propogated down recursive definitions without > a type signatu

Re: mailing list trouble

The haskell.org server was replaced on Sat with a new machine. Although care was taken to migrate all the files it looks like we missed some. The good news is the old server is still available and most likely has the missing archives. I'll work on restoring the missing ones today.

Summer School on Generic Programming

Summer School and Workshop on Generic Programming St Anne's College, Oxford, UK 26th to 30th August 2002 In conjunction with Summer School and Workshop on Advanced Functional Programming This school is a successor to the Summer School and Workshop on Al

Re: RFC: Syntax for implicit parameter bindings

[Resent with permission of author -=chak] I'm beginning to find implicit parameters *extremely* useful, so I think it's important to get this right. I have some code that will have to change, but not as much as I will have in a couple of years...! I find adding a keyword to implicit parameter de

Re: Non-determinism in newline in the Haskell report

On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 03:15:40AM -0800, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > | I propose replacing the above with the following. It does > | mean that creates 2 newlines, but I don't believe > | this should be a problem. > | > | whitechar-> newline | vertab | formfeed | space | tab | uniWhite >

RE: Non-determinism in newline in the Haskell report

| I propose replacing the above with the following. It does | mean that creates 2 newlines, but I don't believe | this should be a problem. | | whitechar-> newline | vertab | formfeed | space | tab | uniWhite | newline -> return | linefeed | return -> a carriage return | linefe

RE: Implicit Parameters

Title: RE: Implicit Parameters I'm obviously missing something here. I dont understand what monomorphism has to do with the given example as the implicit parameter would be the same type [a] for some type a in each case. If we made the parameter explicit then removing the type definitio

Re: Implicit Parameters

Suppose I have the following function definition: app :: (?ys :: [a]) => [a] -> [a] app xs = case ?ys of [] -> xs (y:ys') -> y : (app xs with ?ys = ys') This function appends its argument to its implicit argument,

RE: Another Implicit Parameter Infelicity

| p :: Maybe ((?param :: a) => a) | p = return g; Neither GHC nor Hugs allow a polymorphic type variable (the argument of Maybe) to be instantiated to a polymorphic type. Systems which do are called 'impredicative' (or is it the other way around?). Going impredicative has big negative

Implicit Parameters

Hi all, Now we are talking about implicit parameters, let us take up the following problem with them on the Haskell mailing list too. Suppose I have the following function definition: app :: (?ys :: [a]) => [a] -> [a] app xs = case ?ys of [] -> xs (y:ys') -> y : (app xs

Re: RFC: Syntax for implicit parameter bindings

Ashley Yakeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > At 2002-02-03 15:34, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote: > > > The main disadvantage of this solution is that, in > > Haskell, some keywords (`let', `case', `where', and `do') > > trigger the layout rule and now `dynamic' or `nonrec' > > would have to

RE: Implicit Parameter Bug?

This bug is already fixed in 5.02.2, which is available now. Simon | -Original Message- | From: Ashley Yakeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: 04 February 2002 02:23 | To: Haskell List | Subject: Implicit Parameter Bug? | | | What's wrong with this? | | f :: ((?param :: a) =>

Re: RFC: Syntax for implicit parameter bindings

Ch. A. Herrmann proposed: | addBase{?base=7} 5 I like this! It is the least polluting syntax of all. /Koen. ___ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell

Re: RFC: Syntax for implicit parameter bindings

Hi Haskellers, personally, I'd prefer to use a kind of labeled fields notation at the point where the function is called, like: addBase{?base=7} 5 In recursive calls, this notation would then be optional, of course. If a function should be called multiple times with the same value of the im