On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:32:26AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 31 January 2006 17:48, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > This indicates that the warning "wouldn't happen much" _when you want
> > sharing_. But it would happen all the time when you don't want
> > sharing, eg. in the case Malcolm Wallace
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:58:15PM -0500, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> Unfortunately, local instance declarations threaten the coherence
> property of type classes and principle types. See for example,
> ``Functional pearl: implicit configurations—or, type classes reflect the
> values of types'
Unfortunately, local instance declarations threaten the coherence
property of type classes and principle types. See for example,
``Functional pearl: implicit configurations—or, type classes reflect the
values of types'', Sect 6.1, for a bit of discussion.
So, this extension would require a very c
Ross Paterson:
> 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
Ross Paterson:
> As I read it, the POPL'05 paper cited by the wiki page asserts that
> there is a problem, but does not explain what it is. Is there a better
> reference?
I just added a slightly more detailed explanation as a subpage to
ClassMethodTypes.
Manuel
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> To corroborate Wadler's law further.
>
> Josef wrote:
>
> > Oh yes, it does happen that a single line comment begins with a
> > special symbol. It has happened to me on several occations when using
> > haddock annotation to my source co
Hi all,
To corroborate Wadler's law further.
Josef wrote:
> Oh yes, it does happen that a single line comment begins with a
> special symbol. It has happened to me on several occations when using
> haddock annotation to my source code. It is all to easy to forget that
> extra space. With incomp
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 03:04:14AM +0100, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
> I new this response were coming It basically comes down to how one
> interprets the maximal munch. I know there are plenty of people who agree
> with you. But there are those that agree with my standpoint as well. I'm not
> g
On 2/2/06, John Meacham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 02:31:32AM +0100, Josef Svenningsson wrote:> I still think there is an inconsistency here. And it has to do with maximal> munch lexing. Maximal munch is what we normally expect from a lexer for a
> programming language. But
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 02:31:32AM +0100, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
> I still think there is an inconsistency here. And it has to do with maximal
> munch lexing. Maximal munch is what we normally expect from a lexer for a
> programming language. But the way comments work at the moment breaks maxima
I'm in favour of changing the comment syntax.On 2/2/06, Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am against such a change. The change would break existing software(eg, Yampa) and secondly I don't buy the "main sources of
confusion for beginners" argument. The confusion arises only when
I think that given these results, I would have absolutely no issues with
dropping the MR completely. in fact, I'd recommend it.
If we must do something I don't think it is worth eating an operator for
a new type of binding, but some shorthand syntax
(x) = foo
being sugar for the equivalent of
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:44:37PM +, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
> It can, but so far it's really ugly to apply transformations to entire
> modules. A little syntactic sugar could be good there.
module $hat.Foo(..) where
...
could mean pass the entire module through the 'hat' function of TH. t
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:40:26PM -0500, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> As for consistency, well if you absolutely want to make it consistent,
> impose the same rule on {- as on --.
I think it is already consistant. '--' is a valid operator while '{-'
has no valid meaning outside of a comment in
I am against such a change. The change would break existing software
(eg, Yampa) and secondly I don't buy the "main sources of
confusion for beginners" argument. The confusion arises only when a
single line comment is used to uncomment a set of characters that start
with a special symbol. That
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> btw, on the http://haskell.galois.com/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/PartialTypeSigs
> author mean using underscore for "(exists a . a)" types
>
No I don't, for a number of technical reasons.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is no magic bullet. There are, howev
Hello Simon,
Tuesday, January 31, 2006, 1:31:26 PM, you wrote:
SM> We must find *something* to throw away though! :-)
"newspeak is the only language whose dictionary is decreasing" (c) "1984"
:)
at least from library we should throw many things, including old
exceptions, data.array and of cour
Hello Johannes,
Tuesday, January 31, 2006, 5:34:44 PM, you wrote:
JW> Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
>> instead of writing
>> foo :: (Num a, Monad m) => a -> m ()
>> allow to write
>> foo :: Num -> Monad ()
JW> as has been noted, that would be special treatment
JW> for unary type classes with argument
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:51:08PM +, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
> I'm not convinced on that. You'd have to specify a surprisingly low-level
> language to allow that to the extent the real optimisation nuts want, and
> that's something that really should be beyond the scope of the standard.
>
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:40:20AM -0500, Robert Dockins wrote:
> Additionally, a standard for core would allow a new level of tool
> interoperability. Haskell front ends and backends could be cleanly
> separated along a well-defined border. DrIFT and Haddock and others
> as well could bene
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Creighton Hogg wrote:
> I apologize in advance if I say something silly, but
> wouldn't such a language transformation be a use for
> Template Haskell? Superficially, it seems like you should
> be able to do that.
>
It can, but so far it's really ugly to apply transformat
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> Wednesday, February 01, 2006, 6:48:48 AM, you wrote:
>
> >> On the other hand, if pattern bindings were strict by default, I bet
> >> there would be a lot fewer accidental space leaks.
>
> JM> I don't think this is true. I think there
Hello John,
Wednesday, February 01, 2006, 6:48:48 AM, you wrote:
>> On the other hand, if pattern bindings were strict by default, I bet
>> there would be a lot fewer accidental space leaks.
JM> I don't think this is true. I think there would just be a whole lot of a
JM> different type of space
"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Summary: 2 programs failed to compile due to type errors (anna, gg).
> One program did 19% more allocation, a few other programs increased
> allocation very slightly (<2%).
I wonder how many programs would fail to compile if local identifier
bindings w
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Robert Dockins wrote:
> > One can even imagine someone developing a pure H-core compiler, with
> > the fuller language implemented as a pre-processor over the top!
> > (I know at least one person who would prefer to write programs in
> > core rather than Haskell'98...)
>
> In
On Feb 1, 2006, at 5:12 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 1/31/06, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been swayed by the arguments put forward by the ~-
proponents, so
I'm not going to champion the removal of ~ any more.
We must find *something* to t
On 01 February 2006 11:42, Nils Anders Danielsson wrote:
> However, to stand on more solid ground I suggest that someone runs
> some performance tests, with and without
> -fno-monomorphism-restriction, to see whether the M-R has any great
> impact in practice. There are some performance test suite
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, "Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the new evidence that it's actually rather hard to demonstrate any
> performance loss in the absence of the M-R with GHC, I'm attracted to
> the option of removing it in favour of a warning.
I also want to remove the M-R, beca
The wiki page
http://haskell.galois.com/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/ExistentialQuantification
has been updated to reflect the discussion on existentials.
Simon T.
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/ma
On 31 January 2006 17:48, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:17:57AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> On 30 January 2006 21:49, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>>> In the present case, people aren't (only) opposing the M-R out of
>>> principle, but because they actually use overloaded variable
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/31/06, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've been swayed by the arguments put forward by the ~-proponents, so
> > I'm not going to champion the removal of ~ any more.
> >
> > We must find *something* to throw away though! :-)
>
> I still like th
31 matches
Mail list logo
