On 17/01/2019 16:46, Mario Blažević wrote:
On 2019-01-16 3:26 p.m., Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
...
I'd like to thank you for your work - myself I'm infamously unable to
get things done (to the point of unemployability), and I've stayed
off the committee precisely because I can appreciate
On 18/12/2018 18:02, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
Moreover, while there is little risk of confusion when arrow
syntax is used, looking just at names, the fact is that the use of the
distinct "returnA" also sends a similar signal to the reader, and
consequently there is a certain consistency in distinct
On 18/12/2018 07:38, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Hello Mario et al.,
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 4:17 AM Mario Blažević wrote:
While you're reviewing AMP, please take a bit of time to also comment on
the related new MonadPlus excise proposal at
https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/23
The
of
producing the Haskell Report, I think about how H2010 went almost
nowhere because of how this kind of discussion makes it easy to not
decide on what any particular change to the Report might be, and sort
of wish that we had a Report which was current at all...
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 10:07 Ph
ng this thought about exactly how general the code is, and making
it slightly harder to guess the types at a glance).
It's like while pure and return are equal whenever they would both
typecheck, they've come to have very different connotations about the
surrounding code.
On Tue, Dec 18,
On 18/12/2018 13:41, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
Hi,
Philippa wrote:
> It's a lot easier to estimate ecosystem impact given a switch that'll
> find all the resulting errors and give everyone a chance to fail any
> tests.
Yes, a good point.
But just to be clear, the impact of some changes go well
On 18/12/2018 12:23, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
Hi all,
Well, I am in favour of discussing AMP and MRP separately
Whoops, my bad, wasn't familiar enough to realise my suggestion was
effectively covered by MRP!
I think it might be a legitimate thing to tease do-uses-*> apart from
MRP-as-a-whole
I'm having a moment of fail trying to work out how to leave a comment.
Is there a reason (other than GHC not doing it yet) not to have do
notation use *> instead of >> in line with using the least restrictive
function? I have some otherwise-nice logic programming code that would
actively
Good to know!
It's important to keep morale up and do what we can. I imagine that'll
be small details in my case, but there's meaningful modernisation to be
done even if major type system features are still too difficult to
standardise just yet.
On 03/12/2018 21:23, Carter Schonwald wrote:
On 09/10/2018 00:58, Mario Blažević wrote:
On 2018-10-07 11:32 PM, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
I'd be remiss if I didn't suggest a candidate with a specific
problem, a specific goal and a possible solution to its problem. So,
a modest proposal:
- Standardise OverloadedStrings
On 09/10/2018 00:58, Mario Blažević wrote:
On 2018-10-07 11:32 PM, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
I'd be remiss if I didn't suggest a candidate with a specific
problem, a specific goal and a possible solution to its problem. So,
a modest proposal:
- Standardise OverloadedStrings
On 05/10/2018 18:05, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-prime wrote:
If we want to change that, the first thing is to build a case that greater
standardisation is not just an "abstract good" that we all subscribe to, but
something whose lack is holding us back.
To pick an example, I'm left
On 08/10/2018 02:51, Mario Blažević wrote:
Neither an abstract good nor a good abstraction are something Haskell
has ever shied away from. I don't know if you're actually asking for a
list of "concrete goods"? To start with, every GHC extension that's
added to a standard means:
- one less
You're implicitly arguing that no language should have support for
declaring informal intentions. That's rather more controversial than you
might think and it's worth separating out as a subject.
The fact you cheerfully talk about making return and bind inherently
related via superclass
Agreed - the appropriate means for specifying the type system is
something I'm not sure we have a truly good answer for at this point
alas. We're way past being able to rely on an informal "H-M +
constraints from typeclasses" style description if we want to describe
even extensions that have
In all honesty, Typing Haskell in Haskell is about as far as anyone
should push typechecking and type inference while claiming to still work
in a functional style. I don't think a good GADT pre-spec looks like
functional programming at all, it's a [constraint] logic programming
problem and
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Johan Tibell wrote:
An interesting question. What is the goal of Haskell'? Is it to, like
Python 3000, fix warts in the language in an (somewhat) incompatible
way or is it to just standardize current practice? I think we need
both, I just don't know which of the two
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, apfelmus wrote:
Robert Will wrote:
Could someone please summarize the current status and planned time
line for Haskell'?
John Launchbury wrote:
Up to now, the Haskell' effort has been mostly about exploring the
possibilities, to find out what could be in Haskell',
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, David House wrote:
I think that's too safe-looking. Anything that translates to something
involving unsafe* should be tagged with 'unsafe' somewhere as well.
Also, as unsafe* is still compiler specific, I think a pragma is
probably most appropriate:
{-# GLOBAL-MUTVAR
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Claus Reinke wrote:
the alternative I'm aiming for, as exhibited in the consP example, would be
to build patterns systematically from view patterns used as abstract
de-constructors, composed in the same way as one would compose the
abstract constructors to build the
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Of course, this is not really the joy of
pattern guards. It is the joy of monads,
with perhaps a few character strokes
saved by a confusing overloading of (-).
Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
I don't find it any more
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
I don't find it any more confusing than the overloading
of -.
I wrote:
You mean that it is used both for lambda abstractions
and for functional dependencies? True, but those
are so different
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Yitz Gale wrote:
Donald Bruce Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The joy of pattern guards
reveals once you have more conditions.
Of course, this is not really the joy of
pattern guards. It is the joy of monads,
with perhaps a few character strokes
saved by a
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
That something might confuse the beginning user should count for nothing if it
does not annoy the more experienced user.
This experienced user regularly uses a haskell interpreter for a desk
calculator, not to mention for producing readable budgets
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
Hello,
On 11/30/06, Philippa Cowderoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This experienced user regularly uses a haskell interpreter for a desk
calculator, not to mention for producing readable budgets that show all
the working. Removing defaulting would
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, isaac jones wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 14:04 +0200, Christophe Poucet wrote:
Hello,
Just a small request. Would it be feasible to tag the Haskell-prime
list in a similar manner as Haskell-cafe?
I'd rather not. If you want to be able to filter, you can use the
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Aaron Denney wrote:
I misspoke -- I shouldn't have said out. Send mailing list
traffic to seperate mail folders, with seperate new mail indicators, and
everything is golden.
Not really, 99% of the non-spam mail I get's from mailing lists so it
gives the same problem as
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Doaitse Swierstra wrote:
In Haskell we write `f` in order to infixify the identifier f. In ABC the
stuff between backquotes is not limited to an identifier, but any expression
may occur there. This would allow one to write e.g.
xs `zipWith (+)` ys
In general expr1
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, S.J.Thompson wrote:
Jim - it's worth looking at the proposal for views, proposed by Warren
Burton et al, accessible from
http://haskell.galois.com/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/Views
Myself I'm of the view transformational patterns (as described in
I just added a ticket requesting that some definitions be added to the
wiki (so that other pages and tickets can link to them, helping to
demystify jargon for those who don't specialise in specific fields). I've
also included quick definitions for predicative and impredicative in
the ticket,
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
btw, on the http://haskell.galois.com/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/PartialTypeSigs
author mean using underscore for (exists a . a) types
No I don't, for a number of technical reasons.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is no magic bullet. There are, however,
31 matches
Mail list logo
