On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> | Indeed, I wished the 0-ary case would be more alike to the unary and
> | binary case, cf.
> |
> | return f0
> | f1 <$> a1
> | f2 <$> a1 <*> a2
> |
> | What is needed is a nice syntax for "idiom brackets".
>
> Indeed. I'
Welcome to issue 276 of the HWN, an issue covering crowd-sourced bits
of information about Haskell from around the web. This issue covers the
week of August 4 to 10, 2013.
Quotes of the Week
* AndrazBajt: co-worker = producer of work tasks
* Brend: I have created a revolutionary AI from fi
| Indeed, I wished the 0-ary case would be more alike to the unary and
| binary case, cf.
|
| return f0
| f1 <$> a1
| f2 <$> a1 <*> a2
|
| What is needed is a nice syntax for "idiom brackets".
Indeed. I'm quite open to adding idiom brackets to GHC, if everyone can agree
on the
On 14/08/13 19:02, Niklas Broberg wrote:
> Hi Mateusz,
>
> haskell-src-exts is not haddock-aware I'm afraid, so I don't have any real
> solution for you. The one you mention, i.e. going through the whole parse
> result and stiching things together manually seems like the best bet if you
> want to u
Hi Mateusz,
haskell-src-exts is not haddock-aware I'm afraid, so I don't have any real
solution for you. The one you mention, i.e. going through the whole parse
result and stiching things together manually seems like the best bet if you
want to use haskell-src-exts throughout.
In the longer run,
I'm writing a small tool to help to analyse Haddock comments in
Haskell source files to help me to indicate any potential breakage to
documentation in existing source files.
Currently I'm doing the parsing with the GHC's ‘parser’ function with
Opt_Haddock set and I filter out everything I don't ne
On 13/08/13 17:38, Andreas Abel wrote:
Indeed, I wished the 0-ary case would be more alike to the unary and binary
case, cf.
return f0
f1 <$> a1
f2 <$> a1 <*> a2
You could always write the above as
pure f0
pure f1 <*> a1
pure f2 <*> a1 <*> a2
Twan
_
Is a second order type one whose instances (values?) are ordinary types?Are kinds *->* second order types?Is Species without the argument a second order type?But with the argument Species is a first order type?Thanks,Pat-- Elephant and Dog typesdata Elephant = Elephant deriving Showdata Dog = Dog
