Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk writes:
[...]
> My new record scheme proposal does not provide such lightweight
> extensibility, but fields can be added and deleted in a controlled
> way if the right types and instances are made.
Johan Nordlander must be on holiday or something, so I'll deputise fo
Peter Douglass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Julian Assange wrote (Dec 28, 2000):
>
> > This is why all non S-exp like lanaguage are doomed to progressive
> > syntactic cancer as the useful parts of operator name space and syntax
> > space become progressively polluted and mutated by one fad aft
Julian Assange wrote (Dec 28, 2000):
> This is why all non S-exp like lanaguage are doomed to progressive
> syntactic cancer as the useful parts of operator name space and syntax
> space become progressively polluted and mutated by one fad after
> another.
Could you expand on this? I would think
A syntax to choose the active instances may be useful, too.
E.g.:
use EccenticOrd, SetCollection in exp
then in exp the instances EccenticOrd, SetCollection are known (or preferred).
This is similiar to the open syntax in Cayenne.
--
Stefan Karrmann
_
Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:37:45 -0800, John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~mpj/pubs/lightrec.html
I've read it and posted some comments in February 2000. There was no
answer AFAIR. Here are they again, slightly edited and extended:
I don't understand why to separate kind
I also like the approach of generalizing the record system, although I
have not evaluated your particular proposal. Speaking of record
improvements why is
http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~mpj/pubs/lightrec.html
not listed on the future of haskell page? has it already been determined
to not be in t
George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm writing, but that shouldn't be too hard to tweak. In particular I have
> followed SML in using "." to express qualification by something, even though
> Haskell already used "." for something else, because I can't be bothered right
> now to dig up
Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:10:55 +1100, Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> Mercury's module system allows instance declarations (which, as in
> Haskell 98, are unnamed) to be selectively exported.
If they could be selectively exported in Haskell, how to make it
compatible with the current as
On 21-Dec-2000, George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (3) Finally it would be nice to extend the module syntax to allow named
> instances to be selectively exported and imported, just like variables.
Mercury's module system allows instance declarations (which, as in
Haskell 98, are un
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:20:46 +0100, George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> So if you agree with me up to here, perhaps you are agreed that it is worth
> while trying to find a middle way, in which we try to combine both approaches.
I am thinking about a yet different approach. Leave classes an
Alternatively, I wonder whether the current system of type classes is the right
model at all.
Although I prefer the Haskell system, I think it is instructive to compare it
with the Standard ML (SML) system of structures and functors. My point is that
both Haskell and SML impose one of two possib
11 matches
Mail list logo
