Tom Pledger wrote:
>
> 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 holid
Doug Ransom writes:
[...]
> 2. It seems to me that the Maybe monad is a poor substitute for
> exception handling because the functions that raise errors may not
> necessarily support it.
It sometimes helps to write such functions for monads in general,
rather than for Maybe in particular.
Erik Meijer wrote:
> Nope, I also think that Haskell is the world's finest *imperative* language
> (and the world's best functional language as well). The beauty of monads is
> that you can encapsulate imperative actions as first class values, ie they
> have the same status as functions, lists, .
> Forgive me if I am ignorant, but who claimed that Haskell was an
"imperative" language?
>
> Also, in order to take full advantage of Haskell, it would seem necessary
to
> get used to functional programming style (the Haskell school of
expression, in particular).
> It seems that using Haskell as
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:26:19 -0500 (EST)
Patrick M Doane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I think a really good beginner's tutorial on I/O could be
> started from this
> paper:
>
>- Start immediately with using the 'do expression' and
> don't
> worry about the history that led
| Another question concerning the do-notation: I noticed
| that most parts of ghc do not use it. Is it because
| the code was written before the notation was available,
| because the do-notation is too weak to express these
| parts, or for another fundamental reason ?
The former: mostly written b
> > I'm constantly amazed by the number of tricks one has
> > to know before he can write concise code using the
> > do-notation (among other things, I used to write
> > "x <- return $ m" instead of "let x = m").
> [snip]
> Why do you WANT to write concise code using the do-notation?
> Has someon
