While I agree with your general argument, I wonder if you realize
that functional dependencies have a strong, general, and elegant
mathematical foundation that long predates their use in Haskell?
If you want even a brief glimpse, there's s short article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_
Barney Hilken wrote:
I totally disagree. The great strength of Haskell is that, whenever
important design decisions have been made, the primary consideration has
not been practicality, but generality and mathematical foundation. When
the Haskell committee first started work, many people said la
Johannes Waldmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked me to clarify my claims here.
But I say: why not to ask Chris Okasaki himself?
Manuel Chakravarty has recently published this:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/WC07.html so he might take the question
too.
>From my perspective there are too m
Dear Fellows,
It is obvious that Haskell takes its strength from well implemented abstract
concepts that made monadic programming natural and
threads cheap. However I believe that some top decisions have been made in the
wrong order, which is extremely important now to be
aware of when new featu
My rationale for these criteria goes like this: efficient access is
necessary if we want to compete with the much simpler record systems
in
mainstream languages. If records are not as light-weight
(syntactically as
well as wrt run-time performance) as 'normal' Haskell data types, then
people
Ben Franksen wrote:
> Barney Hilken wrote:
>>> From: Ben Franksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: 18 February 2008 21:32:29 GMT
>>> To: haskell@haskell.org
>>> Could you be more specific? Which proposals exactly do you mean and
>>> where
>>> can I read more about them?
>>
>> Hlist is one of the ones
Barney Hilken wrote:
>> From: Ben Franksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: 18 February 2008 21:32:29 GMT
>> To: haskell@haskell.org
>> Could you be more specific? Which proposals exactly do you mean and
>> where
>> can I read more about them?
>
> Hlist is one of the ones | was thinking of. Two more a
