Re: the dreaded offside rule

2006-03-08 Thread Lennart Augustsson
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

Re: small extension to `...` notation

2006-03-08 Thread Ben Rudiak-Gould
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

Re: the dreaded offside rule

2006-03-08 Thread Neil Mitchell
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

Re: the dreaded offside rule

2006-03-08 Thread Philippa Cowderoy
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

the dreaded offside rule

2006-03-08 Thread Doaitse Swierstra
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

Re: small extension to `...` notation

2006-03-08 Thread Philippa Cowderoy
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

small extension to `...` notation

2006-03-08 Thread Doaitse Swierstra
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

Re: If you really care, make sure it gets on the wiki (how to create a proposal)

2006-03-08 Thread Wolfgang Jeltsch
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

Re: overlapping instances and constraints

2006-03-08 Thread Claus Reinke
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 (

Re: alternative translation of type classes to CHR (was:relaxedinstance rules spec)

2006-03-08 Thread Claus Reinke
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

Re: relaxed instance rules spec (was: the MPTC Dilemma (please solve))

2006-03-08 Thread Jim Apple
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

Re: partial application syntax

2006-03-08 Thread Dinko Tenev
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