On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 06:15 AM, C T McBride wrote:
This is why most sensible dependent type theories have a hierarchy of
universes behind the scenes. You can think of * in Haskell as the lowest
universe, inhabited by types.
Why wouldn't terms be the lowest universe?
Sam Moelius
__
> Samuel E Moelius, wrote (on Wed, 06 Aug 2003 at 15:35):
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 06:15 AM, C T McBride wrote:
>> This is why most sensible dependent type theories have a hierarchy of
>> universes behind the scenes. You can think of * in Haskell as the lowest
>> uni
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Thomas L. Bevan wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I don't see that the contibutors files are fundementally different.
> - From what I understand, it should be possible to write a
> generic function,
>
> importCSV :: FilePath -> IO [ (String,Stri
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:30:44 +0200
Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What negative consequences does their implementation have? I think,
> sometimes they could be quite handy.
That you have to solve a constraint system to compile your program,
AFAIK. But I guess that a brave GHC u
Is there any way to parametrize a type by a value, rather than another type?
What I would like to do is to define "list of length 3" and "list of length
4" as separate parametrization of the same type, such that I could write
functions that accept lists (under my new typename) of any length as l
I wrote:
> Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 2003-08-05, 15:22, CEST, Nick Name wrote:
>
>
>
> > > This is called "dependent types" and is not a feature of haskell
> > > (nor of any language that I know); there was "cayenne" (try a google
> > > search) but I don't beli
