The good thing about laTeX is that out of all the candidates it is the most
likely one to still work 40 years from now,
Doaitse
> Op 9 sep. 2017, om 15:40 heeft Herbert Valerio Riedel
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Hello *,
>
> On 2017-09-08 at 00:46:52 +0200, Mario Blazevic wrote:
>
I prefer them to be part of the context-free syntax, since this enables a
future extension in which an arbitary expression can be placed between
backticks. This would enable one to write things as:
x `f i` y
and
expr1 `expr2` expr3
is to be interpreted as (expr2) (expr1) (expr3),
Doaitse
There are very good reasons for not following this road; indeed everything
which is a Monad can also be made an instance of Applicative. But more often
than not we want to have a more specific implementation. Because Applicative is
less general, there is in general more that you can do with it.
On 4 jan 2011, at 11:24, o...@okmij.org wrote:
>
> I'd like to argue in opposition of making Functor a super-class of
> Monad. I would argue that superclass constraints are not the right
> tool for expressing mathematical relationship such that all monads are
> functors and applicatives.
>
> It
On 17 nov 2010, at 16:21, Ben Millwood wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
>> Reading this proposal I think it clearly states my point made earlier:
>> allowing infix specifications everywhere provides unneeded flexibility and
>> unnecessary complexity.
>>
>> Ideally
Reading this proposal I think it clearly states my point made earlier: allowing
infix specifications everywhere provides unneeded flexibility and unnecessary
complexity.
Ideally I would like to see them even before the module keyword: they state how
to read the text that follows, and thus fa
On 10 sep 2010, at 20:13, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 07:51:10PM +0200, S. Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
>>
>> Currently Haskell has infix, infixl and infixr operators. I see a use for
>> infixlr as well. This indicates that the implemtation may assume t
Currently Haskell has infix, infixl and infixr operators. I see a use for
infixlr as well. This indicates that the implemtation may assume the operator
to be associative, and thus has the freedom to "balance" an expression
containing several operator occurrences.
The reason that I bring up thi
010, at 11:56 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 09/02/10 21:43, S. Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
One we start discussing syntax again it might be a good occasion
to
reformulate/make more precise a few points.
The following program is accepted by the Utrecht Haskell
Compiler (here
we took great effort to fo
On 10 feb 2010, at 10:40, Sebastian Fischer wrote:
On Feb 9, 2010, at 10:43 PM, S. Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
-- but if we now unfold the definition of one we get a parser error
in GHC
increment' = ( let x=1 in x + )
The GHC and Hugs parsers are trying so hard to adhere to the
One we start discussing syntax again it might be a good occasion to
reformulate/make more precise a few points.
The following program is accepted by the Utrecht Haskell Compiler
(here we took great effort to follow the report closely ;-} instead of
spending our time on n+k patterns), but no
Herewith I propose Atze Dijkstra as a member of the Haskell 2011
committee.
Atze is the main architect/implementor of the Utrecht Haskell Compiler
(see http://www.cs.uu.nl/wiki/UHC, and last year Haskell Symposium),
and has as a result of that a very good insight in the implementation
iss
r the time being you may resort to our attribute grammar system,
which basically generates such catamorphisms 9and matches nicely with
our parser combinators too):
http://www.cs.uu.nl/wiki/HUT/AttributeGrammarSystem
Doaitse Swierstra
___
Has
ables.
You can also activate the TeX input method using C-u C-\ TeX RET (if
leim is installed). Then you can insert many characters by typing
their TeX names. The character ∘ can be inserted by typing \comp,
for
instance.
Doaitse Swierstra
___
Ha
'(case x of p -> e, 42)'.
Where one of course should have written:
(case x of p -> e; , 42)
or even
(case x of p -> e;;, 42)
I am just giving this to show to those who claim that things are
simple are probably overlooking things,
Doaitse
___
Some questions were raised. Let me start withbynoticing that all I am
interested in is a very small extensions, without creating more
problems than solving, so I could perfectly live with:
- no `...` inside `...`. If you really need this you use parentheses
- the first element between the `
On 2006 mrt 09, at 1:54, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I agree with it being complicated. I don't know of any compiler
that implements it correctly. Do you say your combinators do?
At least we think so. The way to use it is e.g.:
pExprPrefix =sem_Expr_Let <$ pKey "let" <*> pDecls <* p
extends to the lower right of its first character.
Doaitse Swierstra
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
to Haskell, which does not break
anything existing, and provides yet another opportunity to beautify
one programs, especially in combination with programs like lhs2TeX.
Doaitse Swierstra
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
h
19 matches
Mail list logo
