I agree with it being complicated. I don't know of any compiler
that implements it correctly. Do you say your combinators do?
That said, I don't think it can be replaced easily without breaking
existing code, so I'm unwilling to change unless someone can show
an alternative that handles 99.9% o
Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
xs `zipWith (+)` ys
There is one problem with this: it doesn't nest [...]
Another problem is that it's not clear how to declare the fixity of these
things. Should they always have the default fixity? Should they be requi
Hi,
>1) it is impossible to explain the precise workings of the rule to
> a class of first years undergraduates
Then don't explain it to them. At York in the 3rd year Haskell course
it is never explained in detail, I think it might be briefly mentioned
in passing that some kind of indentation
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
> 1) it is impossible to explain the precise workings of the rule to a class
> of first years undergraduates
>
> This is extremely demotivating. I do not want to teach using the
> following utterances: "If you write your programs in the same sty
It is with some hesitation that I want to bring up another point, in
which Haskell' could be an improvement above Haskell: the offside rule.
Although I manage to live with it, I encountered many problems with
it in the past:
1) it is impossible to explain the precise workings of the rule
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
> In Haskell we write `f` in order to infixify the identifier f. In ABC the
> stuff between backquotes is not limited to an identifier, but any expression
> may occur there. This would allow one to write e.g.
>
> xs `zipWith (+)` ys
>
> In general
In Haskell we write `f` in order to infixify the identifier f. In ABC
the stuff between backquotes is not limited to an identifier, but any
expression may occur there. This would allow one to write e.g.
xs `zipWith (+)` ys
In general `` => ()
I think it is a small extension to Haskell
Am Sonntag, 5. März 2006 02:59 schrieb isaac jones:
> [...]
> 2. If you don't have a wiki account, Log in with username guest and password
> haskell' to create and edit tickets.
How do I get a account for the wiki?
> [...]
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
___
H
there were a couple of issues Simon raised that I hadn't responded to in
my earlier reply. since no-one else has taken them on so far, either, ..
- Haskell would need to be a lot more specific about exactly where
context reduction takes place. Consider
f xs x = xs == [x]
Do we infer the type (
a second oversight, in variation B: CHR rules are selected by matching,
not by unification (which is quite essential to modelling the way type
class inference works). this means that the idea of generating memo_
constraints for the instance fdis and relying on the clas fdi rules to
use that info
On 3/7/06, Ben Rudiak-Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# John Meacham wrote:
# # Polymorphic recursion allows the construction of infinite types if I
# # understand what you mean.
#
# No, that's different. An infinite type can't be written in (legal) Haskell.
Though GHC with existentials allows so
http://haskell.galois.com/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/FlexiblePartialApplication
On 3/7/06, Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> there was some proposal for introducing a special syntax where f x _ z or
> f x ? z means \y -> f x y z. Is there some information on the Ha
12 matches
Mail list logo
