On 6 Feb, 2007, at 19:59 , Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Anyways, it seems that most people are in favor of the rank-N
proposal. How to proceed? I suggest that we wait a little longer to
see if any more comments come in and then if I am still the only
supporter for rank-2 we should be democratic an
On 2/5/07, Ulf Norell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 3, 2007, at 6:35 AM, Douglas Philips wrote:
> Well, if we're going to bring personal points of view in, it highly
> pisses me off that in a construct such as:
> ( expr ,
> expr ,
> expr ,
> expr ,
> expr ,
> )
> I have to be vigila
On 2007 Feb 5, at 6:13 AM, Ulf Norell wrote:
How about instead writing
( expr
, expr
, expr
, expr
, expr
)
The only extra work is when inserting an element at the beginning,
but you have the same problem in your example.
This a coding style issue. My point was that the syntax should not b
Hi
I guess another important point is to make sure that when we pick a
design, then we have at least one (current) implementation that
supports it (ideally, all implementations would eventually). Could we
get a heads up from implementors about the the current status and
future plans in this are
Hello,
Thanks for the responses! Here are my replies (if the email seems too
long please skip to the last 2 paragraphs)
Simon PJ says:
Hmm. To be consistent, then, you'd have to argue for rank-2 data constructors
only,
since rank-2 functions can be simulated in the way you describe.
I thin
> I don't think that the rank-N system is any more expressive then the
> rank-2 one. The reason is that by placing a polymorphic value in a
> datatype we can decrese its rank. In this way we can reduce a program
> of any rank to just rank-2. So it seems that the issue is one of
> software engine
