Am Samstag, 12. Februar 2005 01:42 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Iavor Diatchki writes in response to Thomas Jger
Literal patterns need equality:
f 2 = e
is like:
f x | x == 2 = e
These do not force the 'Num' class to be a superclass of 'Ord' or
'Eq'. If 'Num' was not a superclass of
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:14:40AM +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Remi Turk wrote:
1) It's talking about the compiler having difficulty with some
warnings when using guards.
http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/haskell-cafe/2005-January/008290.html
Simon
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Remi Turk wrote:
1) It's talking about the compiler having difficulty with some
warnings when using guards.
http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/haskell-cafe/2005-January/008290.html
f x | odd x = ...
| even x = ...
GHC does complain. I would
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:18:19 -0800, Iavor Diatchki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
because I don't like the current situation with (n+k)-patterns:
Everybody says they're evil, but hardly anybody can explain why he
thinks so.
I think 'evil' may be a little too strong. I think the usual
Hi,
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:02:56 +0100, Thomas Jäger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
iii) As a side effects of how n+k patterns work, each instance of the
Num class must also be an instance of Eq, which of course doesn't make
sense for all numeric types.
Well this is not entirely true. I don't
Is there also a Wiki page about things you should avoid?
Since I couldn't find one, I started one on my own:
http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/ThingsToAvoid
I consider 'length', guards and proper recursion anchors.
[Moving the discussion from the wiki to the mailing list until we've
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 02:54:12PM +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Henning Thielemann wrote:
Is there also a Wiki page about things you should avoid?
Since I couldn't find one, I started one on my own:
http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/ThingsToAvoid
I consider
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Thomas Jäger wrote:
Altogether, the spirit of the page seems to be use as little
syntactic sugar as possible which maybe appropriate if it is aimed at
newbies, who often overuse syntactic sugar (do-notation).
This overuse is what I observed and what I like
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Thomas Jäger wrote:
Altogether, the spirit of the page seems to be use as little
syntactic sugar as possible which maybe appropriate if it is aimed at
newbies, who often overuse syntactic sugar (do-notation).
What I forgot: Each new syntactic sugar is
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:50:16 +0100 (MET), Henning Thielemann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Thomas Jäger wrote:
Altogether, the spirit of the page seems to be use as little
syntactic sugar as possible which maybe appropriate if it is aimed at
newbies, who
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 02:54:12PM +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Henning Thielemann wrote:
Is there also a Wiki page about things you should avoid?
Since I couldn't find one, I started one on my own:
http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/ThingsToAvoid
I consider
Hello,
...
Yeah, as long as it is explained and clearly marked as an opinion (as
it is now), that's ok. One reason that I got so excited about that is
because I don't like the current situation with (n+k)-patterns:
Everybody says they're evil, but hardly anybody can explain why he
thinks
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Bayley, Alistair wrote:
Were you thinking of something like [n] Things a Java Programmer Should
Know About Ruby ?
http://jimweirich.tadalist.com/lists/public/14055
Perhaps you'd like to start a page on the wiki. A
Henning Thielemann wrote:
Since I couldn't find one, I started one on my own:
http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/ThingsToAvoid
I consider 'length', guards and proper recursion anchors.
Very interesting. It would be nice to have reasoning for the n+k
patterns thing. Guidelines that say 'don't do this'
14 matches
Mail list logo
