Then we say "the argument occurs in both positive and negative
positions" or "the argument occurs in both covariant and contravariant
positions". There doesn't seem to be a shorter name. I want to note that
this kind of thing drives OOP crazy.
i recall this paper being of some help:-)
http:/
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:26:17PM -0300, Felipe Almeida Lessa wrote:
> I know that types like
>
> >data T = T (T -> T)
>
> are inhabitated by things other than bottom (like id or \_ ->
> undefined), but can it be useful for *anything*?
Yes. In particular, types like those can produce an explic
On 4/5/07, Albert Y. C. Lai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Weston wrote:
> What is it called if it's both?
Then we say "the argument occurs in both positive and negative
positions" or "the argument occurs in both covariant and contravariant
positions". There doesn't seem to be a shorter name. I
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:53:31AM -0700, Stefan O'Rear wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:42:09AM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Lennart Kolmodin wrote:
> > > I think the LANGUAGE pragma is much better than OPTIONS_GHC, for several
> > > reasons.
> > >
>
Dan Weston wrote:
What is it called if it's both?
Then we say "the argument occurs in both positive and negative
positions" or "the argument occurs in both covariant and contravariant
positions". There doesn't seem to be a shorter name. I want to note that
this kind of thing drives OOP crazy
On 2007-04-03, Jeremy Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Getting Source / Submitting Patches:
>
> Currently the only way to get the source is through hackage. If there
> is demand, we can make the source available via tla or darcs. For now,
> just submit any patches as a .diff.
This sounds sweet.
On 05/04/07, John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A very big problem with the pragma as it relates to
Distribution.Extension is that it is unextensable.
Yet another use case for Andres Löh and Ralf Hinze's open datatypes
[1]. Shame they're still lacking an implementation.
[1]: http://www.in
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:42:09AM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Lennart Kolmodin wrote:
> > I think the LANGUAGE pragma is much better than OPTIONS_GHC, for several
> > reasons.
> >
> > * It's compiler independent.
> > * It's clear that you're only adding
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Lennart Kolmodin wrote:
> I think the LANGUAGE pragma is much better than OPTIONS_GHC, for several
> reasons.
>
> * It's compiler independent.
> * It's clear that you're only adding extensions, not any random compiler
> flag.
> * It plays nicely with Ian's
