On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 09:47:49PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 17/05/13 20:01, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>
> >I'd be in favour of allowing a trailing or leading comma anywhere that
> >comma is used as a separator. TupleSections would need to be changed or
> >r
ined as before.
What about these?:
import Prelude.XYZ as Foo
import Foo as Prelude.XYZ
Thanks
Ian
--
Ian Lynagh, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://ww
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:06:25PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> Hardly anybody uses haskell98 or haskell2010, so we would still have
> a backwards compatibility problem.
I meant 'base' to be included in 'these packages'; I've clarified the
wiki page.
ardscompatibility
for a way that backwards compatibility can be maintained, with
additional imports not being needed until code migrates to the
split-base packages.
Thanks
Ian
--
Ian Lynagh, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/
__
rom base is a rather strong
> step, which hasn't seen much support.
Just to clarify: This proposal is to stop importing the module
implicitly, not to actually remove the module.
Thanks
Ian
--
Ian Lynagh, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LL
earlier draft.
Thanks
Ian
--
Ian Lynagh, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
e while
debugging.
Commenting out list items is much more common, though.
I'd be in favour of allowing a trailing or leading comma anywhere that
comma is used as a separator. TupleSections would need to be changed or
removed, though.
Thanks
Ian
--
Ian Lynagh, Haskell Consultant
We
report will be updated as proposals are
accepted, but new versions of the standard will only be released once a
year, during January.
The Haskell 2014 committee is comprised of:
* Carlos Camarão
* Iavor Diatchki
* Ian Lynagh (chair)
* John Meacham
* Neil Mitchell
* Ganesh
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:35:10PM -0400, Edward Kmett wrote:
>
> I have dozens of classes of forms like
>
> class Wrapped s t a b | a -> s, b -> t, a t -> s, b s -> t
Isn't this equivalent to just
class Wrapped s t a b | a -> s, b -> t
?
Thanks
Ian
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 07:26:16PM -0500, Edward Kmett wrote:
> If space sensitivity or () disambiguation is being used on !, could one of
> these also be permitted on ~ to permit it as a valid infix term-level
> operator?
I don't think there's any reason ~ couldn't be an operator, defined with
th
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 10:37:44PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>
> I don't have a strong opinion about whether
> f ! x y ! z = e
> should mean the same; ie whether the space is significant. I think it's
> probably more confusing if the space is significant (so its presence or
> abse
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:44:53AM +, Ben Millwood wrote:
>
> I have two proposals, I suppose:
> - make bang patterns operate only on variables and wildcards
> - make bang patterns in let altogether invalid
Looking at this again made me realise that, as well as !_ and !varid
lexemes, we could
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 10:34:04PM +, Ben Millwood wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 05:10:42PM +0000, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> >
> >The first is suggested by "A bang only really has an effect if it
> >precedes a variable or wild-card pattern" on
> >http://hackag
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 05:31:53PM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> The committee has received no nominations.
At least one was sent. Does haskell-2011-commit...@haskell.org accept
mails from non-members?
Thanks
Ian
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Hask
Hi Malcolm,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:40:53AM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>
> Please send nominations to haskell-2011-commit...@haskell.org, summarising
> your interest and experience. The existing committee will (I hope) make some
> decision on how to proceed, in early January 2013.
Any
Hi all,
I would like to get a full specification of the bang patterns syntax,
partly so it can be proposed for H', and partly so we can resolve
tickets like http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1087 correctly.
I think there are 3 possibilities:
The first is suggested by "A bang only re
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:44:51AM -0500, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Nate Soares wrote:
>
> > I second this question. At what point do we cut Haskell' with what we
> > have, release it, and push the big undecideds back to Haskell"?
>
> Maybe the question is whethe
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 08:20:45AM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Malcolm Wallace
> wrote:
> >> In the region of this side of the Atlantic Ocean where I teach, the
> >> student population is very diverse
> >
> > Prelude> putStrLn (take 5 "Fröhßen")
> > Fröhß
>
> gh
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 05:31:48PM -0400, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 16:16, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:50:10AM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote:
> > > Using list-based operations on Strings are almost always wrong
> >
> > D
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 08:38:23PM +, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> On 24 March 2012 20:16, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> >
> >> Correctness
> >> ==
> >>
> >> Using list-based operations on Strings are almost always wrong
> >
> > Data.Text
Hi Johan,
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:50:10AM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Heinrich Apfelmus
> wrote:
> > Which brings me to the fundamental question behind this proposal: Why do we
> > need Text at all? What are its virtues and how do they compare? What is th
Hi Gaby,
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 06:29:24PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> OK, thanks! I guess a take away from this discussion is that what
> is a punctuation is far less well defined than it appears...
I'm not really sure what you're asking. Haskell's uniSymbol includes all
Unicode chara
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 05:41:23PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> I'm confused too. I'd welcome clarification from the Haskell Prime folk.
We use the library process to agree changes to the libraries, and
Haskell' should then incorporate the changes into the next version of
the standard.
Th
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:24:52PM +0200, Daniel Fischer wrote:
>
> If it's considered to be a small enough change so a libraries proposal
> would be sufficient, all the better, but if not, I'd like to pursue the
> haskell-prime process further.
My understanding is that for changes to libraries
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 06:39:11PM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>
> (b) this delta will be applied to the 2010 Report to form a new
> baseline;
Did this happen? If so, where is it?
I only found:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-report/
which hasn't had a patch since Jul 21 2009, and
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 12:49:09PM +0200, Dark Lord wrote:
> On 04/02/2011 12:08, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> > I suggested, and several people +1'd, that if we are making disruptive
> > changes to the standard libraries defined in the
> > Language Report (especially the Prelude), then we should aim
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 06:39:11PM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>
> (a) we wish to accept the NoDatatypeContexts proposal
Hurrah!
> (b) this delta will be applied to the 2010 Report to form a new
> baseline;
> (c) we will _not_ issue a new language standard called 2011;
> (d) we intend to
Hi all,
I haven't heard anything about Haskell 2011 since
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2010-August/003263.html
Can someone let me know what's happening please? Will there be a Haskell
2011?
Thanks
Ian
___
Haskell-prime mailing
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 11:31:17PM +0100, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> I think they are equally feasible, but as Simon says, we have avoided
> introducing new global keywords.
> And I think we should avoid it this time too. Why break programs when we
> don't have to.
I've added an alternative delt
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 09:46:29AM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> I don't think it's feasible to allow 'case' as a type
> variable, but it's certainly feasible to allow 'forall' as a term
> variable.
Why is 'case'-only-in-expression harder than 'forall'-only-in-type?
> On the other hand, it ma
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:36:51PM -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote:
>
> P.S. IMHO capitalization, ExplicitForAll vs ExplicitForall, let's stick
> to one. The extension is written ExplicitForall.
GHC only knows about ExplicitForAll. I think this was a mistake, but I
don't think it's worth changing now
Hi Iavor,
Thanks for your comments.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 06:25:38PM -0800, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
>
> * Why is "forall" promoted to a keyword, rather then just being
> special in types as is in all implementations? I like the current
> status quo where "forall" can still be used in value exp
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 08:56:52PM +0200, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
>
> I don't seem to be able to log in to the trac, so
> perhaps someone else will submit the ticket.
Done: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/142
Thanks
Ian
___
Haskell-
Hi all,
I've completed the ExplicitForAll proposal, started by Niklas Broberg
(but any errors are doubtless mine!):
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/ExplicitForall
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/133
I imagine this is too late for H2011 (if that will actua
Hi all,
I've made a couple of tickets for small fixes to the report:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/140
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/141
Thanks
Ian
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.or
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:14:53PM +0200, S. Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
>
> 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.
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 the operator
> to be associative, and thus has the freedom to "balance" an expres
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 04:25:18PM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>
> Can I therefore encourage any people who have made proposals, either
> informally on mailing lists, or formally in the Haskell-prime ticket
> system, to consider what they need to do to bring those proposals to a
> state whe
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 01:52:36PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> Yes, Ian Lynagh implemented your algorithm in GHC (with several tweaks
> to implement some of the darker corner cases, I believe). There's also
> -XAlternativeLayoutRuleTransitional but I'm not sure what
Hi all,
H98 and H2010 allow a context to be given for datatypes, e.g. the
"Eq a" in
data Eq a => Foo a = Constr a
I have made a proposal to remove support for that context (ticket #139).
More details are on the proposal wiki page:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/NoDa
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 04:01:54PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> The second draft of the Haskell 2010 report is now available in PDF and
> HTML formats (the PDF looks a lot nicer):
>
> http://www.haskell.org/~simonmar/haskell-2010-draft-report-2.pdf
> http://www.haskell.org/~simonmar/haskell-2010-
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 05:05:17PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> I'd appreciate a few more eyes over this, in particular look out for
> messed up typesetting as there could still be a few bugs lurking.
In the PDF:
p166: Does anything support these?:
DoAndIfThenElse, HierarchicalModul
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 05:05:17PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> I'd appreciate a few more eyes over this, in particular look out for
> messed up typesetting as there could still be a few bugs lurking.
In the PDF:
p129-137: A "program" can only contain a "modid" as part of a
"qvarid"
On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 08:05:58PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 01/05/10 17:16, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>
>>> So it seems this is closer to option (2) in my message, because
>>> portablebase and haskell2010 overlap, and are therefore mutually
>>> exclusive, whereas in
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 09:37:39PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 30/04/10 13:19, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>>> 4. Provide a haskell2010 package and a base2010 package that
>>> re-exports all of base except the modules that overlap with
>>> haskell2010. You can either use haskell2010,
>>> haskell2010
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 05:05:17PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> I've completed most of the edits to the Haskell 98 report for Haskell
> 2010, modulo the changes to the libraries that we still have to resolve.
>
> I cleaned up various other things I discovered along the way, and tidied
> up the
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 05:05:17PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> I'd appreciate a few more eyes over this, in particular look out for
> messed up typesetting as there could still be a few bugs lurking.
In the PDF:
p10: Typo "Februrary"
p10: The new (purple) bullet points do not end in full sto
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 09:54:04AM -0500, Doug McIlroy wrote:
> Very minor library change to promote readability of output:
> eliminate spaces in the string representation of Ratios.
>
> Currently, a Ratio appears as a pair separated by " % ".
> The spaces that flank "%" make for confusing output.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 07:07:30PM -0800, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose that we add record punning to Haskell 2011.
>
> Thoughts, objections, suggestions?
I have a feeling I'm in the minority, but I find record punning an ugly
feature.
Given
data T = C { f :: Int }
we implici
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 03:21:54AM +0100, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> I agree, I don't think this is a bug. If the grammar actually says
> that this is legal, then I think the grammar is wrong.
Then what do you think the grammar should say instead?
That sections should be
( fexp qop )
?
I'v
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 04:59:59PM +, Ross Paterson wrote:
>
> But I agree they should all be legal, i.e. that unary minus should bind
> more tightly than any infix operator (as in C).
See also
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/NegativeSyntax
Thanks
Ian
___
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 03:14:13PM +0100, Christian Maeder wrote:
> David Virebayre schrieb:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Christian Maeder
> > mailto:christian.mae...@dfki.de>> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder why I still get a "parse error (possibly incorrect
> > indentation)" for:
>
Hi Christian,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:29:10AM +0100, Christian Maeder wrote:
>
> seeing Haskell 2010 and
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/DoAndIfThenElse
>
> saying:
> Compiler support ¶
> GHC full (no flag)
>
> I wonder why I still get a "parse error (possibly incorre
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:45:04PM -0700, John Meacham wrote:
>
> Also, what about data declarations? Would we need something like below?
> It seems odd to apply such a rule sometimes but not others.
>
> > data Foo = (Foo { .. }) | ...
You would not need these parentheses; nor would you need par
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:
> > > >
> &g
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:16:28PM +0300, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Isaac
> Dupree wrote:
> > Iavor Diatchki wrote:
> >>
> >> I am strongly against this change. The record notation works just
> >> fine and has been doing so for a long time. The notation is reall
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote:
>
> I haven't seen anyone else claim to use the current more liberal
> syntax for fields, but I know that I do rather extensively. I would
> consider:
>
> Just A {a = 1}
>
> To be confusing, but if you simply omit the space:
>
> Jus
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 03:46:41PM +0200, Sean Leather wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 13:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>
> > Would it be useful to add an example with the appropriate parentheses?
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand what sort of an example you want. Isn'
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:21:06AM +0100, Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> Ian Lynagh writes:
> > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/StricterLabelledFieldSyntax
>
> I approve of the principle -- the binding level is confusing, but I
> would far rather make a bigger chan
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Sean Leather wrote:
> > I've made a ticket and proposal page for making the labelled field
> > syntax stricter
> >
>
> I'm definitely in favor of this change. I only have an issue with calling it
> "stricter." Maybe it's just me, but strictness doesn't pro
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 09:45:18PM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> 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}
>
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}
and requiring this instead:
data A = A {x :: Int}
y :: Maybe A
y = Just (A {x = 5})
http://hack
Hi all,
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
Thanks
Ian
___
Haskell-p
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 somewhere?
Please let me know if there's an
Tue Jul 21 04:06:30 PDT 2009 Ian Lynagh
* Tweak rule so make knows how to create haskell.idx
M ./report/Makefile -1 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-report/_darcs/patches/20090721110630-3fd76-830582c20b8ab7ea571049b4de25b042db91f04f.gz
Tue Jul 21 04:03:50 PDT 2009 Ian Lynagh
* Refactor away old-fashioned make syntax
M ./report/Makefile -7 +5
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-report/_darcs/patches/20090721110350-3fd76-a6176df5dc492d5b34cb2dfed4a31f84870272e2.gz
Tue Jul 21 03:47:49 PDT 2009 Ian Lynagh
* Remove duplicate haskell.dvi dependencies
M ./report/Makefile -2
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-report/_darcs/patches/20090721104749-3fd76-56eaacd95457f668692292862b7b07915af7635f.gz
Tue Jul 21 03:39:57 PDT 2009 Ian Lynagh
* Everyone has perl, clean Prelude*.tex too
M ./report/Makefile -3 +1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-report/_darcs/patches/20090721103957-3fd76-ccdb28273cabb4495bdf0d4c65495cae6156b03b.gz
Tue Jul 21 03:38:44 PDT 2009 Ian Lynagh
* Remove a command from "make clean" that breaks in a fresh repo
M ./report/Makefile -1
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-report/_darcs/patches/20090721103844-3fd76-0511779ead8500ad74a68e4f83f196b0c
Mon Jul 20 17:31:43 PDT 2009 Ian Lynagh
* Fix indentation in an example
Using tabs doesn't give the correct indentation in the HTML output
M ./report/modules.verb -2 +2
View patch online:
http://darcs.haskell.org/haskell-prime-report/_darcs/patches/20090721003143-
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:
> > >
> > > Specifically, I suggest:
> > >
> > > 4. Ix
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 03:39:55PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> But there's a solution: we could remove the "standard" modules from
> base, and have them only provided by haskell-std (since base will just
> be a re-exporting layer on top of base-internals, this will be easy to
> do). Most
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 07:48:36AM +0100, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
>
> I don't have any strong opinion about whether there should be a library
> standard or not, but if there is a standard, how about putting the
> entire thing (perhaps including the Prelude) under the prefix
> Haskell2010. or si
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:57:11AM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 3:20:42 AM, you wrote:
>
> > We've been fortunate recently that, because the hierarchical modules
> > haven't been in the standard, we've been able to extend and improve them
> > without breaking compatibili
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 was immortalised in the H98 report with
> &
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 09:56:50PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
>
> I'd advocate 4. That is, drop the ones that are obviously superseded.
> Keep the commonly used and uncontroversial (mostly pure) modules and
> rename them to use the new hierarchical module names.
>
> Specifically, I suggest:
>
>
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:05:52AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 08/07/2009 22:45, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:09:29PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>> 1. Just drop the whole libraries section from the report. The
>>> Report will still
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:09:29PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> 1. Just drop the whole libraries section from the report. The
> Report will still define the Prelude, however.
>
> I'm tending towards (1), mainly because it provides a clean break and is
> likely to be the least confusing fo
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 09:27:16AM -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> Haskell-98 specifies that module import cycles work
> automatically with cross-module type inference.
>
> It has some weird interactions with defaulting and the
> monomorphism restriction. In Haskell-prime we're planning
> on remo
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:18:47PM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:24AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > The current proposal on the table for what to do about the monomorphism
> > restriction (henceforth MR) is
> >
> > * remove the MR entirely
>
> Just to be clear, a
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 02:05:58PM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> that with the qualified operator change, this becomes:
>
> f.g f . g (three tokens)
> F.g F.g (qualified `g')
> f.(.) f . (.) (three tokens) *
> F.(.) F.(.) (qualified `.')
> F. F . (two tokens)
A
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:39:09AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> Ok, I'm going to try to make some progress on this. I think it's fair
> to say that the only possible options are (0) do nothing, or (2) require
> spaces around "." as an operator.
If we are considering requiring spaces around "
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:42:10AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> Ok. So I counter-propose that we deal with pattern bindings like this:
>
> The static semantics of a pattern binding are given by the following
> translation. A binding 'p = e' has the same meaning as the set of
> bindings
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:21:26AM +0200, Niklas Broberg wrote:
> > I'm very suspicious about the power/weight ratio of this change.
> > Normally, for simple value-level stuff like this, provide both options:
> >
> > mapM / forM. =<< >>=
> >
> > So how about, rather than break things, just pr
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 09:52:11AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> The problem with this is that
>
> f !x y
>
> would associate differently in an expression than it does on the left
> hand side of an equation, where ! is the prefix bang-pattern operator.
> To make this consistent we'd have to
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 10:54:28AM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
>
> second, every year Haskell committee should decide which libraries of
> currently Hackage-available are most widely used, portable and free,
> and call this set a "Haskell- standard libraries", together with
> versions inspec
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 09:14:55AM +0400, Dusty wrote:
>
> foo '-'1 has two arguments, (-) and 1,while foo -1 has one
> argument, -1
You mean
foo '-'1
is parsed as
(-) foo 1
and
foo -1
is parsed as
foo (-1)
right?
What would
foo - 1
mean? If it means
(-
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:53:47PM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>
> 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 defn) is demanded, then of course the x on the rhs of the defn is
> also demanded. There is no need for t
Hi all,
Suppose I have a datatype:
data Foo a = Foo {
int :: a Int,
char :: a Char
}
where I start off with (Foo Nothing Nothing) :: Foo Maybe, gradually
accumulate values until I have (Foo (Just 5) (Just 'c')), and then I
want to r
Hi all,
A while ago there was a discussion on haskell-cafe about the semantics
of strict bits in datatypes that never reached a conclusion; I've
checked with Malcolm and there is still disagreement about the right
answer. The original thread is around here:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskel
Context if you haven't been following:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1215
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:12:33PM -, GHC wrote:
>
> Interesting. It turns out I misinterpreted the Haskell lexical syntax:
> GHC lexes `M.default` as `M` `.` `default`, because `M.default` is not a
>
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 02:33:47AM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
> Motivated by some recent discussion, I thought I would explore the
> possibilty of formalizing the haskell layout rule without the dreaded
> parse-error clause, as in, one that can be completly handled by the
> lexer.
There was some d
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://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 02:55:03PM -0800, David Roundy wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 10:28:09PM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> > [...]
> > and this leads us to other question - whether this set and API of each
> > library should be fixed in language standard or it can evolve during
> > the time
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:19:09PM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Has clarifying the pattern matching order for records as described in
> > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/246 been discussed for
> > hask
Hi all,
Has clarifying the pattern matching order for records as described in
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/246 been discussed for
haskell'? I couldn't see it on the proposals list.
Personally I actually think hugs is doing the right thing according to
the report and that there is n
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 01:26:52PM +0100, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | > Template Haskell breaks expressions with $,
> |
> | It's very bad that with TH enabled you cannot write sections of the
> form ($ x)
> | anymore which are sometimes very handy.
>
> I'd prefer it if TH only sprang into actio
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 04:53:52PM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 09 March 2006 14:40, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> > But ISTR I later discovered a reason that counting brackets wouldn't
> > work so well, but for now it escapes me. I'll try to dig it up.
>
> I remember now: the problem is that 'let'
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:27:48PM +0100, Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
> It is with some hesitation that I want to bring up another point, in
> which Haskell' could be an improvement above Haskell: the offside rule.
This is something I would have brought up too, except I don't think I'll
have time t
[sorry, I've lost the original post]
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:47:37PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 11:36:34AM +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> > The remaining problem is that using "type" for every type is misleading,
> > since
> > "type" is otherwise used only for ali
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
