Tim Docker wrote:
These layouts feel a bit artificial to me. I am quite partial to
python's
list syntax - a trailing comma is optional. meaning you can write
[
a,
b,
c,
]
I'm surprised this approach isn't more widespread - Are there reasons
why
haskell syntax could
Hello Tomasz,
Friday, July 14, 2006, 9:31:32 AM, you wrote:
>> There might be issues with tuples though, for example (1,2,) would be
>> the (,) tuple and not the (,,) tuple, which is a bit weird.
> Besides, it might be a bit more natural if (1,2,) was a shorthand for
(\x ->> (1,2,x))
in haskell
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 01:01:23AM +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote:
> There might be issues with tuples though, for example (1,2,) would be
> the (,) tuple and not the (,,) tuple, which is a bit weird.
Besides, it might be a bit more natural if (1,2,) was a shorthand for
(\x -> (1,2,x))
Best regards
T
Hi
[
a,
b,
c,
]
I'm surprised this approach isn't more widespread - Are there reasons
why
haskell syntax could not/should not be defined this way?
I believe GHC allows multiple commas after each other in some places,
for example module export lists. Unfortunately
On Jul 12, 2006, at 9:18 PM, Joel Reymont wrote:
> Are cool kids supposed to put the comma in front like this?
>
> , foo
> , bar
> , baz
>
> Is this for historical or other reasons because Emacs formats Haskell
> code well enough regardless.
>
> Thanks, Joel
>
These layouts feel a bit art
On Jul 12, 2006, at 9:18 PM, Joel Reymont wrote:
Are cool kids supposed to put the comma in front like this?
, foo
, bar
, baz
Is this for historical or other reasons because Emacs formats
Haskell code well enough regardless.
Thanks, Joel
I personally like this style. It's a l
On 2006-07-13 at 09:35EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark T.B. Carroll) wrote:
> Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > a::
> > b::
> > c:.
> >
> > but when I suggested this at a Haskell meeting, Simon PJ
> > complained that it "looks like hopscotch". I've never quite
> > understood that complai
Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> a::
> b::
> c:.
>
> but when I suggested this at a Haskell meeting, Simon PJ
> complained that it "looks like hopscotch". I've never quite
> understood that complaint!
http://blogs.salon.com/0002296/myimages/hopscotch.jpg and
http://www.northshield.org/
On 2006-07-13 at 11:15+0200 Henning Thielemann wrote:
> Optimal notation of lists, because of most easiest editing, is
>
> a:
> b:
> c:
> []
That made me smile. In Ponder I had used up : for types, and
lists could be
a::
b::
c:.
but when I suggested this at a Haskell meeting, Simon PJ
complaine
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> On 2006-07-13 at 02:29BST "Neil Mitchell" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Are cool kids supposed to put the comma in front like this?
> > Some cool kids do, some cool kids don't. Some do both, depending on their
> > mood.
> >
> > The advantage of a leading
On 2006-07-13 at 02:29BST "Neil Mitchell" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Are cool kids supposed to put the comma in front like this?
> Some cool kids do, some cool kids don't. Some do both, depending on their
> mood.
>
> The advantage of a leading , is that now the comma's line up, and if
> you want to add
Hi,
Are cool kids supposed to put the comma in front like this?
Some cool kids do, some cool kids don't. Some do both, depending on their mood.
The advantage of a leading , is that now the comma's line up, and if
you want to add an item on the end of a list
[a
,b
,c
]
It's just a one lin
Are cool kids supposed to put the comma in front like this?
, foo
, bar
, baz
Is this for historical or other reasons because Emacs formats Haskell
code well enough regardless.
Thanks, Joel
--
http://wagerlabs.com/
___
Haskell-Cafe ma
13 matches
Mail list logo
