At 16:50 17/03/2003 +1100, Bernard James POPE wrote:
You have struck the monomorphism restriction.
See:
http://research.microsoft.com/Users/simonpj/haskell98-revised/haskell98-report-html/decls.html#sect4.5.5
This is an often tripped over snag in Haskell 98's type system.
Ah, thanks. I'd read tha
At 22:00 16/03/2003 -0800, Hal Daume III wrote:
It is not. Lets are expressions. Wheres are part of declarations. In a
grammar sense, you have something like:
funcdef ::= name = expr (where decls)?
expr::= let decls in expr
so the declarations inside a let are internal to the expression and
Hello again,
> See "Conception, evolution, and application of functional programming
> languages" by Paul Hudak. That's a great starting point for a "History of
> Haskell" page:
>
> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=72551.72554
thank you, I will read it.
> You're welcome to steal the simp
I'm trying to figure how to use parameterized types and/or classes.
Example: I wish to define a structured container type, let's call it a
"RatsNest", that is type-variable in two ways:
(a) it is parameterized by a type of some class, let's call it "RatsTail",
such that a RatsNest is a structur
hi,
i can't really argue with simon he is the real compiler expert.
and i am not familiar with the inner workings of GHC, so my argument is
even weaker. and in any case discussions on the haskell mailing list
very rarely have any effect except for their entertainment value during
boring meeting
| there is no need to use such hacks. it is not dificult to add suport
| for mutually recursive modules to an implementation directly.
| unfortunatley none of the working haskell implementations support
| recursive modules,
Simple in principle, not so simple in practice. If it was easy to ma
Graham Klyne writes:
| In the function body (rhs):
|
| let
| { a = (e1) }
| in
| (e2)
| where
| { b = f a }
:
|
:
| I now see that use of 'where' is restricted to specific contexts. I wonder
| if such restriction is needed? The diffe
Hi,
> f x = let ...
>in
> ...
> where
> ...
>
> Assuming that all the ...s are legal, is this OK? Should it be? It
> really makes the 'where' clause look like it's inside the 'let', when
> in fact it can't be.
Ah, sorry. Yes, this is legal. However, if
[Hal Daume III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> No, that's not legal. You'll get an unbound variable error on the use of
> 'a' in the definition of 'b'. This doesn't really have anything to do
> with layout. Consider the following definition:
>
> > f x =
> >case x of
> > Nothing -> ...
> >
No, that's not legal. You'll get an unbound variable error on the use of
'a' in the definition of 'b'. This doesn't really have anything to do
with layout. Consider the following definition:
> f x =
>case x of
> Nothing -> ...
> Just (y,z) -> let Just q = z
>in
[Hal Daume III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> It is not. Lets are expressions. Wheres are part of declarations. In a
> grammar sense, you have something like:
>
> funcdef ::= name = expr (where decls)?
> expr::= let decls in expr
>
> so the declarations inside a let are internal to the expression
Hello Steffen,
> I need a lot of material relating the following topics:
>
> - from lambda calculus to functional programming
> - other roots of Haskell (e.g. Gofer, ...)
> - genesis of the well known and beloved standard Haskell98
See "Conception, evolution, and application of functional program
EACL 2003 in Budapest, April 12-17, 2003
Workshop Programme and Call for Participation
Important dates:
Workshop dates: Apr 13-14, 2003
Conference dates: Apr 12-17, 2003
Important URLs:
---
Registration:http://www.conferen
FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT
and
CALL for PARTICIPATION
The 11th ELSNET Summer School on Language and Speech Communication
Topic: Language and Speech Technology in Language Learning
Lille (France), Mond
Hello,
I want to create a source of historic information
to delight the Haskell community and therefore I need a
lot of material relating the following topics:
- from lambda calculus to functional programming
- other roots of Haskell (e.g. Gofer, ...)
- genesis of the well known and beloved sta
Steffen Mazanek wrote:
> are there any valid links in the whole internet pointing to old
> versions of hugs? Concretely I need hugs-1.3b and all hints how to
> find it would be very appreciated.
William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied:
> Well, it's not a particularly flattering state
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:10:57AM +, Steffen Mazanek wrote:
> are there any valid links in the whole internet
> pointing to old versions of hugs? Concretely
> I need hugs-1.3b and all hints how to find it
> would be very appreciated.
> One may ask what the hell I want to do with
> this old stu
Hello,
are there any valid links in the whole internet
pointing to old versions of hugs? Concretely
I need hugs-1.3b and all hints how to find it
would be very appreciated.
One may ask what the hell I want to do with
this old stuff :-). My intention is to compare
its parser.y file with the one of
18 matches
Mail list logo
