Malcolm wrote:
> The Haskell Report's definition of `seq` does _not_ imply an order of
> evaluation. Rather, it is a strictness annotation.
That is an important point.
> Now, in the definition
> x = x `seq` foo
> one can also make the argument that, if the value of x (on the lhs of
> the
On 30/11/2006, at 3:36 PM, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Unfortunately, I suspect that teaching is _the_ major use-case for
defaulting. Imagine, day one, lesson one, a student types
Prelude> 1+2
into Hugs, and gets the response
Unresolved overloading: Num a
Huh? This i
On 30/11/2006, at 5:08 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Bernie Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't see a proposal to remove defaulting defaulting altogether on
that page - has that been discussed already?
Defaulting is one wart I would be glad to be rid of.
I would also be happ
On 28/11/2006, at 11:28 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 12:05:46PM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Prompted by recent discussion on the Hat mailing list about the
problems
of type-defaulting, I have added two new proposals for this issue
to the
Haskell-prime wiki at:
http:
