The offside rule is patronizing. :)
It tries to force you to lay out your program in a certain way.
If you like that way, good. If you don't like that way, you can
use {;} as you say.
-- Lennart
Frederik Eaton wrote:
Huh, that seems patronizing. Well at least I can override it with {}.
Huh, that seems patronizing. Well at least I can override it with {}.
Thanks,
Frederik
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 02:42:53AM +0200, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> That's how it is defined in the Haskell definition.
>
> But there is a reason. The offside rule (or whatever yoy want to
> call it) is th
That's how it is defined in the Haskell definition.
But there is a reason. The offside rule (or whatever yoy want to
call it) is there to give visual cues. If you were allowed to override
these easily just because it's parsable in principle then your code
would no longer have these visual cues
Compiling the following module (with ghc) fails with error message
"parse error (possibly incorrect indentation)", pointing to the let
statement. The error goes away when I indent the lines marked "--*".
But I don't understand how what I've written could be ambiguous. If I
am inside a parenthesize
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 08:50:21PM +0200, Mads Lindstr?m wrote:
> I am trying to learn Meta Haskell. One thing I want to do is create an
> identity function. It should get a type constructor as input and return
> the same type constructor as output. It should be possible to do:
>
> $(idDecl data
Hi
I am trying to learn Meta Haskell. One thing I want to do is create an
identity function. It should get a type constructor as input and return
the same type constructor as output. It should be possible to do:
$(idDecl data Foo = Foo Int)
and it should "return":
data Foo = Foo Int
Is thi
-
CALL FOR PAPERS!!!
Eighth International Symposium on
Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages 2006
(PADL '06)
http://www.cs.bro
