On 10/09/05, Frederik Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These are good arguments, and I think this is a good direction for the
> discussion, should it continue.
>
> > Despite having a fairly mathematical background, I don't really care
> > for the proposed syntax.
> >
> > myList :: [[Integer]]
>
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:55:15AM +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
> life is funny, isn't it? so many people so eagerly
lazily, in my case
> discussing conversion between non-monadic and monadic code,
I'm trying to discuss a new syntax, not code transformations. I agree
that the two are related. I'm
Am Samstag, 10. September 2005 05:12 schrieb Aaron Denney:
> [...]
> Well, monads are already treated specially -- the whole do syntax.
But the do syntax isn't a very drastic special treatment of monads. There is
a relatively simple syntax-based transformation into code without do
expressions.
Am Freitag, 9. September 2005 23:56 schrieb Frederik Eaton:
> [...]
> Would it mean treating the 'Monad' class specially? Perhaps, but I
> don't think this is a reason to avoid it.
As far as I can see, your approach would make Haskell a kind of imperative
programming language. Side-effects woul
I heartily agree with everything Cale wrote
on this topic.
In addition, I hereby apologize to Claus for
being too lazy to participate in the survey.
Regards,
Yitz
Cale Gibbard wrote:
> Despite having a fairly mathematical background, I don't really care
> for the proposed syntax.
>
> myList ::
> Any ideas, pointers, comments?
Hacle: http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~mfn/hacle/
It transforms from Haskell to Clean, so I would have thought it has a
transformation to convert certainly the IO Monad to uniqueness types.
Neil
___
Haskell mailing list
After looking at the language Clean (http://www.cs.ru.nl/~clean/) I
wonder why there does not seem to be the desire to integrate uniquness
typing into Haskell.
Any ideas, pointers, comments?
--
Chris Stork <> Support eff.org! <> http://www.ics.uci.edu/~cstork/
OpenPGP fingerprint: B08B 60
These are good arguments, and I think this is a good direction for the
discussion, should it continue.
> Despite having a fairly mathematical background, I don't really care
> for the proposed syntax.
>
> myList :: [[Integer]]
> myList = return [1,2,3,4]
I'm assuming you mean
myList :: [[Intege
