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
removed, though.
The type constructors
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.
Thanks
Ian
--
Ian Lynagh, Haskell
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://www.haskell.org/mailman
on an 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
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 LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/
___
Haskell
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/
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http
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 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
the
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
absence
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 10:34:04PM +, Ben Millwood wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 05:10:42PM +, 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://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki
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
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
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
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
apfel...@quantentunnel.de 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
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.
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, 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 delta
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
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 makes
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
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 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
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 where
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 that does.
It adds
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
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 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,
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 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+base2010,
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 (4) haskell2010 and base2010 are non
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've
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
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 incorrect
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
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
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}
y :: Maybe A
y = Just A {x = 5}
and requiring
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 provoke the
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't
Just (A {x = 5})
one?
I think
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:
Just A{a =
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:16:28PM +0300, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Isaac
Dupreem...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org 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.
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})
Mon Jul 20 17:31:43 PDT 2009 Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li
* 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/20090721003143-3fd76
Tue Jul 21 03:38:44 PDT 2009 Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li
* 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/20090721103844-3fd76-0511779ead8500ad74a68e4f83f196b0c664013b.gz
Tue Jul 21 03:39:57 PDT 2009 Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li
* 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 03:47:49 PDT 2009 Ian Lynagh ig...@earth.li
* 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
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
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. Ixkeep as Data.Ix
5. Array keep
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 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
104 exports, Data.List has gained
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 compatibility with
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
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 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 for
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 removing
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, are we
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 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 . then
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 provide an
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 inspected.
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
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:
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 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:
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' does
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:38:09AM -0800, Isaac Jones wrote:
I would like to strive to find objective data on the use of
extensions. I started a table here which summarizes how popular
extensions are in real-life code. We need more data points, though.
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 09:54:59AM +1100, Patryk Zadarnowski wrote:
On 03/02/2006, at 9:25 AM, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2006 01:32 schrieb Patryk Zadarnowski:
[...]
The proposal would be to remove the unary - altogether, and,
instead,
extend the lexical syntax of
67 matches
Mail list logo
