On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 01:57:34PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:23:51PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 00:20 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 09:56:50PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > > >
> > > To take one example, since List w
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
Parenthesis around updates would make them into functions, ie
({a=1,b=2,...}) would mean the same as (\d -> d{a=1,b=2,...}), but be
more concise.
yes it is, however field updates are occasionally slightly annoying,
since they can't change something's type at all, IIRC. Sa
Hi all,
Per request I've made a ticket and proposal page for adding
ExplicitForall to Haskell'2010:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/133
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/ExplicitForall
Cheers,
/Niklas
___
Haske
On 25/07/2009 02:02, Ian Lynagh wrote:
Hi all,
I've made a ticket and proposal page for removing n+k patterns:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/130
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/NoNPlusKPatterns
Should I have also added it to some index page s
On 25/07/2009 16:28, Ian Lynagh wrote:
I've made a ticket and proposal page for removing the monomorphism
restriction:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/131
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/NoMonomorphismRestriction
I think if we do this we really hav
According to the wiki, since I'm not a committee member, I should post
proposals here. See below my reply to Isaac's message.
Isaac Dupree
writes:
> Jon Fairbairn wrote:
>> Ian Lynagh writes:
>> [field update] /has/ the
>> binding level of function application. ie, instead of a{x=42} one would
Neil Mitchell
writes:
> Hi
>
>>> Would it be proper to create a counterproposal for this syntax?
>>> ReversedLabelledFieldSyntax?
>>
>> I would claim that, of the existing Haskell code,
>> StricterLabelledFieldSyntax only rejects unclear ("bad") code, and
>> requiring it be changed (to be made cl
Ian Lynagh wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
> syntax stricter, e.g. making this illegal:
>
> data A = A {x :: Int}
>
> y :: Maybe A
> y = Just A {x = 5}
+1: The precedence here is an ugly wart. It's particularly annoying when
t
