Hello Arie,
Tuesday, August 22, 2006, 7:24:34 PM, you wrote:
>> I disagree. As a new learner to Haskell, I already have a hard time
>> keeping Constructors, Types, and Classes straight. I know what they
>> all are and what they all do, but sometimes I really have to think
>> hard to remember which
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Tuesday, August 22, 2006, 4:22:50 PM, you wrote:
2) allow to use type classes in type declarations like the types
itself. for example, allow the following:
f :: Num a => a -> Int
write as
f :: Num -> Int
and following:
sequence :: Monad m => [m a] ->
Arie said:
{... This is an instance of a general conflict: should we sacrifice nice
notation for ease of learning? You could make a similar case for list
comprehensions, for example: they complicate matters for newcomers (yet
another meaning of brackets and pipe) ...}
I have to totally agree wi
Hello Bryan,
On 2006-08-22, Bryan Burgers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> so, while this proposal is rather minor, i think that it is Good thing
>
> I disagree. As a new learner to Haskell, I already have a hard time
> keeping Constructors, Types, and Classes straight. I know what they
> all are an
On 8/22/06, Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what i propose is not full replacement of existing syntax - quite the
contrary it is just a syntax sugar for most frequent cases of using
classes in function signatures. the key idea is that in most cases we
use only one type class for each t
Hello Malcolm,
Tuesday, August 22, 2006, 4:22:50 PM, you wrote:
>> 2) allow to use type classes in type declarations like the types
>> itself. for example, allow the following:
>>
>> f :: Num a => a -> Int
>> write as
>> f :: Num -> Int
>>
>> and following:
>>
>> sequence :: Monad m => [m a] -
Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) allow to use type classes in type declarations like the types
> itself. for example, allow the following:
>
> f :: Num a => a -> Int
> write as
> f :: Num -> Int
>
> and following:
>
> sequence :: Monad m => [m a] -> m [a]
> write as
> sequence ::
Hello Marc,
Sunday, August 13, 2006, 10:36:39 PM, you wrote:
> In other words: why not overload (:) ?
i have such proposal, more or less complete:
1) define [] as type class and [] and ':' as operations of this class:
class [] c where
[] :: c a -- creates empty container
(:
