[Posted to haskell-cafe, since it's getting quite off topic]
"Kent Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> for a long time. 16 bit unicode should be gotten rid of, being the worst
>>> of both worlds, non backwards compatable with ascii, endianness issues
>>> and no constant length encoding...
- Original Message -
From: "Ketil Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
> >>> for a long time. 16 bit unicode should be gotten rid of, being the worst
> >>> of both worlds, non backwards compatable with ascii, endianness issues
> >>> and no constant length encoding utf8 externally and utf32
"Kent Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You have endianness issues, and you need to explicitly type text files
>> or insert BOMs.
> You have to distinguish between the encoding form (what you use internally)
> and encoding scheme (externally).
Good point, of course. Most of the argume
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 15:03:15 -0700 Ashley Yakeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> At 2001-10-08 09:27, Diego Dainese wrote:
>
> >what are the reasons behind the rule stating that a type must not be
> >declared as an instance of a particular class, more than once in the
> >program?
>
> It's so that t
hello,
> Why aren't instance declarations handled by the module system like
> every other symbol, so that a module can decide when to import an
> instance declaration and when to export it? Are there technical
> difficulties with this approach?
i beleive the reason is that instances don't have
What is the rationale for when Haskell demands a "=" and when it demands
a "->"? Ideas that occur to me are:
(a) The distinction helps the parser a lot
(b) There's a semantic difference that the language's grammar is trying
to express that isn't obvious to me
-- Mark
___
Title: RE: Unicode support
> -Original Message-
> From: Ketil Malde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
> > But as I said: they will not go away now, they are too
> firmly established.
>
> Yep. But it appears that the "right" choice for external encoding
> scheme would be UTF-8.
You'r
Está para sair a 22 de Outubro... até eu estou a ficar surpreendido com a
evolução destes tipos. Qd penso do 1o Linux que instalei (à cerca de dois
anos? - andava eu no 4o ano) sinto-me como aquelas velhas que dizem "eu ainda
sou do tempo...", err... em que tinha de andar a alterar XF86Config à
I just accidently sent a mail written in portuguese about SuSE 7.3.
I'm really sorry, it will not happen again.
My apologies
J.A.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
"Iavor S. Diatchki" wrote:
>
> hello,
>
> > Why aren't instance declarations handled by the module system like
> > every other symbol, so that a module can decide when to import an
> > instance declaration and when to export it? Are there technical
> > difficulties with this approach?
>
> i b
At 2001-10-09 11:55, Mark Carroll wrote:
>What is the rationale for when Haskell demands a "=" and when it demands
>a "->"?
What? Example please...
--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.or
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
> At 2001-10-09 11:55, Mark Carroll wrote:
>
> >What is the rationale for when Haskell demands a "=" and when it demands
> >a "->"?
>
> What? Example please...
e.g.
x :: Integer -> Integer
y :: Integer -> Integer
z :: Integer -> Integer
x 1 = 1
x 2
Mark Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
>> At 2001-10-09 11:55, Mark Carroll wrote:
>>> What is the rationale for when Haskell demands a "=" and when it
>>> demands a "->"?
Okay, I can't give you anything formal, but here's my intuitive
understandin
At 2001-10-09 17:36, Mark Carroll wrote:
>So, for instance, how come function definitions and guards use "=" but
>lambdas and cases use "->"?
It's like this:
f x = fx
f = \x -> fx
f :: X -> FX
f x = case x of
x' -> fx'
x'' -> fx''
Make sense?
--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
__
On 10 Oct 2001, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Mark Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
>
> >> At 2001-10-09 11:55, Mark Carroll wrote:
>
> >>> What is the rationale for when Haskell demands a "=" and when it
> >>> demands a "->"?
>
> Okay, I can't give y
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, D. Tweed wrote:
> degenerate equality you get from defining the lhs in terms of the rhs. The
> -> is used whenever you've got something on the right that `leads to' to
^left
> something on the left, eg
16 matches
Mail list logo