On Wednesday 22 February 2006 15:53, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> "Simon Peyton-Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | I don't seriously propose for haskell-prime that signatures should
> > | be required on exports. Just permitting them would be a large and
> > | useful step up already.
> >
> > If th
no objects to the discussion as such.
>
> > I certainly don't believe that
> > the language spec should say anything at all about file systems, but
> > it should be open to the possibility that "unspecified
> > implementation-dependent behaviour"
Hi Henrik,
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 16:50, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Georg Martius wrote:
> > I have some proposals for changes of the hierarchical module system as
> > it is at the moment.
> > [...]
> > The hierarchical name can be derived
Hello,
I have some proposals for changes of the hierarchical module system as it is
at the moment.
Goals:
- easy refactoring at Module/Package level
- easier import/export of trees of modules (useful for any larger library)
- relative imports/exports
- deep import or export lists
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 11:40, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> "Jared Updike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I am not sure if this has been mentioned before, but something I
> > > would really find useful is the ability to tell Haskell to export
> > > everything in a function except for some named f
they are not included in the new
standard. What is the problem of specifiing what is implemented.
If they are replaced in the future we will have haskell'' anyway :-).
Cheers,
Georg
--
Georg Martius, Tel: (+49 34297) 89434
--- http://www.
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 12:31, Thomas Davie wrote:
> >> The fact that -- is a reserved word while {- is not just highlights
> >> farther the inconsistency in the language.
> >
> > Your position implies one of the following:
> >
> > 1) You think that "{{" ought to be a legal operator.
> >
> > 2)
