S.J.Thompson wrote:
Johannes - thanks for the pointer to this posting; would you have a
concrete proposal to make on the basis of this for Haskell'?
Sort of an idea, but not fully worked out.
Referring to
http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/haskell-cafe/2005-June/010516.html
I think I want to
On 26 January 2006 16:07, John Hughes wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
I wonder if there's an alternative solution along these lines:
- We use ParialTypeSignatures to make bindings monomorphic:
http://haskell.galois.com/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/PartialTyp
eSigs
eg.
Personally I think ~ patterns are great, and we are now talking about !
patterns, a kind of dual to ~ patterns. So at least I think we should
un-couple the two discussions.
I think so too. Removing ~ patterns seems like a fairly poor idea to
me. Sure, they're not very much explicitly
On 1/26/06, Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-01-26, Dinko Tenev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Conor McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
We'd do daft stuff like
(200 * _ ^ 2) unitsquare
Yes, I played with a concept like that at one point, and came to the
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 01:30:02PM +, S.M.Kahrs wrote:
It doesn't have a ticket yet,
but I would propose that kind annotations were adapted.
I have been bitten on a couple of occasions (working with HO type variables)
by kind inference putting my type vars into *, and although there is
One aspect of this discussion I've yet to see that I think is
important is, how do the various proposals for removal/modifications
of M-R impact implicit parameters? Are implicit parameters likely to
be in Haskell'? It seems like the proposal to default to polymorphic
binding and have
