Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why "-f" anyway? It took me ages to work out what
> "-fallow-overlapping-instances" meant -- I wondered how
> "fallow" could apply to overlapping instances.
I suppose it's a GCCism, where options starting with -f specifiy
*f*lags. (Which doesn't seem
Hi All,
Andrew J Bromage wrote:
>
> G'day all.
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 01:10:03PM +0200, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
>
> > Python has it as well (they stole it from Haskell?)
>
> Python's layout rule looks more like Occam's than Haskell's, to my eyes.
>
> Aside: Was Occam the first language
G'day all.
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 01:10:03PM +0200, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
> Python has it as well (they stole it from Haskell?)
Python's layout rule looks more like Occam's than Haskell's, to my eyes.
Aside: Was Occam the first language of the post-punched-card era to use
layout as syntax?
I wrote:
> > Can someone remind me why the "A close brace is also inserted whenever
> > the syntactic category containing the layout list ends" part
> > of the rule is there?
Lennart wrote:
> It's so you can write
> let x = 2+2 in x*x
> (and similar things)
and Arjan van IJzendoorn wrote:
Jon Fairbairn wrote
[snip]
> Well, there's two things to consider: Haskell 98, which
> probably shouldn't change, and extended Haskell, which
> probably should. Especially if we can make the rules both
> simpler and better.
[snip]
How can I resist? I proposed the following revised layout rule som
> Can someone remind me why the "A close brace is also inserted whenever
> the syntactic category containing the layout list ends" part
> of the rule is there?
x = (3, case True of
True -> 4)
The ')' ends the syntactic category 'tuple'
Arjan
_
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
>
> I wasn't fit enough to follow the earlier discussions of the
> layout rule, so I'm not sure how this interacts with
> previous awkward cases. I'd be happiest if we could come up
> with a rule that didn't involve sticking in braces and
> semicolons because it won't parse
> I like layout but I think the existing rules are too
> complicated. Unfortunat ely it's difficult to do anything
> with them without breaking vast swathes of existing code,
> so we'll just have to put up with them.
Well, there's two things to consider: Haskell 98, which
probably shouldn't chan
Hi everyone,
I thought I would bring a students perspective into this discussion.
Moving from a C background to Haskell, the layout wasn't very intuitive at
first. This was mainly due to my hand's on approach (looking at examples
and trying to code similar programs). Given that if i read up on th
Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> I am certainly not proposing Haskell be modified to eliminate the layout
> option. I'm just curious as to why Haskell programmers choose to use it.
Because I find programs using layout to be more readable.
In Haskell (not in C) programs using {;} I've found that the inden
At 2002-05-30 03:59, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
>Short answer: What's wrong with it is that humans use layout to infer
>the semantic meaning,
No... layout by itself can't be trusted. It's only a clue. One needs to
learn the precise Haskell-specific layout rules, and they're not obvious.
--
Ashley
At 2002-05-30 04:19, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
>same here, for exactly these reasons. students get really confused.
>
>on the other hand, students regularily get confused by other things as well,
>like homework assignments on formal languages,
>so that alone is not enough reason to drop the subjec
At 2002-05-30 04:10, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
>ghc -Wall warns nicely about undeclared top-level types but what about
>locals?
You'd have to declare them in terms of the top-level types, i.e. other
type annotations. I think GHC allows some form of this, but IIRC it's a
bit tricky. If it were
> ... layout rules somewhat
> like Haskell's. In our experience it was the single thing that
> confused students most.
same here, for exactly these reasons. students get really confused.
on the other hand, students regularily get confused by other things as well,
like homework assignments on for
> What's the deal with the whole "layout" thing anyway? I've never come
> across it before in another language.
Python has it as well (they stole it from Haskell?)
> If I were teaching Haskell to "working programmer" types like myself, I
> would encourage them to always use full semicolons and
Martin Odersky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Redundancy maybe? What's wrong in having both layout and punctuation?
Short answer: What's wrong with it is that humans use layout to infer
the semantic meaning, compilers use punctuation. Thus it's not really
redundancy.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen
I like layout but I think the existing rules are too complicated. Unfortunately it's
difficult to do anything with them without breaking vast swathes of existing code,
so we'll just have to put up with them.
The reason I think layout is better than using {'s and ,'s is that humans
use the layout
> If you look at C (& offspring), it's not the {;} that makes the code
> readable, it's the indentation that does. So why not acknowledge
that?
Redundancy maybe? What's wrong in having both layout and punctuation?
For instance, then you can have an emacs mode that handles the layout
given the
At 2002-05-30 02:54, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
>If you look at C (& offspring), it's not the {;} that makes the code
>readable, it's the indentation that does. So why not acknowledge that?
In C, the indentation is an important visual clue, but there are many
different indentation styles. It's
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> it). Certainly I find {;} more readable, and I suspect anyone else with a
> C/C++/Java background (or even a Scheme/Lisp background) does too.
Just a data point: I learned Basic, Pascal, Standard ML, C, Haskell, C++,
Perl, Python in that order and ac
Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> At 2002-05-30 02:26, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
>
> >I think this is extremely bad language design! In general I
> >like having layout rules, but
> ...
>
> What's the deal with the whole "layout" thing anyway? I've never come
> across it before in another language. Is it an acad
At 2002-05-30 02:46, I wrote:
>What's the deal with the whole "layout" thing anyway? I've never come
>across it before in another language.
Oh, wait, there's Python and Ruby. For some reason it doesn't bother me
so much with them.
--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
__
At 2002-05-30 02:26, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
>I think this is extremely bad language design! In general I
>like having layout rules, but
...
What's the deal with the whole "layout" thing anyway? I've never come
across it before in another language. Is it an academic thing? It drove
me nuts when I
Two very similar programmmes:
> possible_int = do skip_blanks
> fmap Just int
>+++ (literal "-" `as` Nothing)
> possible_int = do skip_blanks
> fmap Just int
> +++ (literal "-" `as` Nothing)
I think this is extremely ba
24 matches
Mail list logo
