Am Montag, 21. November 2005 20:51 schrieb Henning Thielemann:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
[...]
Hmm, printing code on paper isn't good for the environment.
But is quite the same argument for e-paper. :-)
I already thought about this. But if your computer is turned on
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 15:40 +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
my 15 CRT holds entire 100, even 102 chars in line and i don't want
to lose even one of them! :) especially when comment to this function
occupies another 7 lines :)
The best argument I can come up with when advocating lines of 80
Am Sonntag, 20. November 2005 12:28 schrieb Jesper Louis Andersen:
[...]
The best argument I can come up with when advocating lines of 80 chars
for most programming code is subtle, but important:
Code is easier to read for me when it is printed on good old paper.
a2ps(1) is magnificient,
On 11/21/05, Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Sonntag, 20. November 2005 12:28 schrieb Jesper Louis Andersen:
[...]
The best argument I can come up with when advocating lines of 80 chars
for most programming code is subtle, but important:
Code is easier to read for me when
You can change the project and update operators in the HList library to
behave
in exactly this way. At the moment they are constrained to not allow
multiple
identical labels in records. If this kind of access is considered
useful, I can
add it to the HList distribution.
Keean.
David
Can this not be done with the HList code? I am pretty sure you should be
able to
map projections over HLists of HLists... (although the HList generic map
is a bit
ugly, requiring instances of the Apply class).
Actually you should look in the OOHaskell paper (if you haven't already)
where it
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Sonntag, 20. November 2005 12:28 schrieb Jesper Louis Andersen:
[...]
The best argument I can come up with when advocating lines of 80 chars
for most programming code is subtle, but important:
Code is easier to read for me when it is printed
On 11/18/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not saying it's impossible to make good use of (.), I'm saying
that it's not crucial enough to warrant giving it the dot, which in my
opinion is one of the best symbols (and I'd hand it over to record
selection any day of the week!).
Hello John,
Saturday, November 19, 2005, 2:25:47 AM, you wrote:
JM grep -o ' [-+.*/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ' GenUtil.hs | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
JM 30 .
JM one of the most common operators.
especially in comments ;) add the following filter to strip them:
import System.Environment
main =
Hello Sebastian,
Friday, November 18, 2005, 6:35:13 PM, you wrote:
groupLen mapper combinator tester = length . takeWhile tester . scanl1
combinator . map mapper
SS This is a border line example of what I would consider being abuse of
SS the (.) operator.
SS First of all, that line is 96
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
How about (¤)? It looks like a ring to me, I'm not sure where that's
located on a EN keyboard, but it's not terribly inconvenient on my SE
keyboard. f ¤ g looks better than f . g for function composition, if
you ask me.
That symbol actually does look
On 11/18/05, Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:56:09PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Some people do use it more often than I do, but I find that in most
cases except simple pipelined functions it only makes the code
harder to read.
But this case is
I always fancied () as a synonym for 'mappend'
John
--
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:21:09PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On 11/18/05, Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:56:09PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Some people do use it more often than I do, but I find that in most
cases except simple pipelined
On 11/18/05, Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 12:21:09PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On 11/18/05, Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:56:09PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Some people do use it more often than I do,
On Friday 18 November 2005 02:59, you wrote:
On Nov 17, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
...
Yes, yes, yes. I'd rather use a different operator for record
selection.
For instance the colon (:). Yes, I know it is the 'cons' operator
for a
certain concrete data type that
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:22:59PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Yes. I just don't think it's used enough to warrant giving it one of
the best symbols.
grep -o ' [-+.*/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ' GenUtil.hs | sort | uniq -c | sort -n
1 $!
1 *
8 +
10 ==
12 -
I second this motion! I rather like Simon's proposal.
On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Fraser Wilson wrote:
Yeah, I thought you might have tried that at some point :-)
I like http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/Haskell/records.html
cheers,
Fraser.
On 11/17/05, Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isn't there a potential for confusion with function composition (f . g)?
That being said, I like this idea (I just need to think it through a bit).Joel Reymont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I second this motion! I rather like Simon's proposal.On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Fraser Wilson wrote: Yeah, I
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a potential for confusion with function composition (f . g)?
That being said, I like this idea (I just need to think it through a bit).
I've been wanting this for ages. It's SO much better than the current
horribly broken
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be
wasted on function composition. I mean, how often do you really use
function composition in a way which doesn't obfuscate your code? I use
($) way more often than (.). Some people do use it more often than I
So it sounds to me that momentum is building behind Simon PJ's
proposal and that we are finally getting somewhere!
Now, when can we actually get this in GHC?
On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:56 PM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
I've been wanting this for ages. It's SO much better than the current
horribly
Would the record system describe at
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/1119
also be convertable into System Fw, GHC's existing, strongly-typeed
intermediate language. ?
On Thu, November 17, 2005 17:56, Sebastian Sylvan said:
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be
wasted on function composition. I mean, how often do you really use
function composition in a way which doesn't obfuscate your code? I use
($) way more often than (.). Some people do use it more often than I
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a potential for confusion with function composition (f . g)?
Perhaps, but I always have spaces on either side when it's function composition. Isn't there already an ambiguity?
-- I bet there's a quicker way to do this ...
module M
On 2005-11-17 at 13:21EST Cale Gibbard wrote:
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be
wasted on function composition. I mean, how often do you really use
function composition in a way which doesn't obfuscate your code? I use
($) way more
On Thursday 17 November 2005 19:21, Cale Gibbard wrote:
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be
wasted on function composition. I mean, how often do you really
use function composition in a way which doesn't obfuscate your
code? I use ($) way
On 17/11/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a potential for confusion with function composition (f . g)?
That being said, I like this idea (I just need to think it through a bit).
I've been wanting this for
On 11/17/05, Cale Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/11/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a potential for confusion with function composition (f . g)?
That being said, I like this idea (I just need to
--- Cale Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I didn't mention this in the other post, but why not the
other way around? Make record selection (#) or (!) (though the latter
gets in the way of array access), and leave (.) for function
composition.
Actually, the fact that (!) is the
On 17/11/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/05, Cale Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/11/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a potential for confusion with function composition (f . g)?
On 17/11/05, Benjamin Franksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 17 November 2005 19:21, Cale Gibbard wrote:
Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be
wasted on function composition. I mean, how often do you really
use function
On 11/17/05, Cale Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/11/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/05, Cale Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/11/05, Sebastian Sylvan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/17/05, Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't there a
another thing is that for any record syntax, we would want higher order
versions of the selection, setting, and updating routines. A quick
perusal of my source code shows over half my uses of record selectors
are in a higher order fashion. (which need to be generated with DrIFT
with the current
On Nov 17, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
...
Yes, yes, yes. I'd rather use a different operator for record
selection.
For instance the colon (:). Yes, I know it is the 'cons' operator
for a
certain concrete data type that implements stacks (so called 'lists').
However I am
Chris Kuklewicz writes:
Would the record system describe at
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/1119
also be convertable into System Fw, GHC's existing, strongly-typeed
intermediate language. ?
Probably. Daan's current implementation uses MLF, which I believe is
system F implemented for
On 11/18/05, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
another thing is that for any record syntax, we would want higher order
versions of the selection, setting, and updating routines. A quick
perusal of my source code shows over half my uses of record selectors
are in a higher order fashion.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 07:32:53AM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On 11/18/05, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
map (.foo) xs
to pull all the 'foo' fields out of xs. (using made up syntax)
Well I suppose this is just a section on the selection operator?
So field labels are
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:56:09PM +0100, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Personally I think that the dot is way to good of a symbol to be
wasted on function composition.
I mean, how often do you really use function composition in a way
which doesn't obfuscate your code?
I just checked in two recent
39 matches
Mail list logo
