+1
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Daniel Fischer <
daniel.is.fisc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I would like to propose the elimination of the special error case
>
> gcd 0 0 = error "Prelude.gcd: gcd 0 0 is undefined"
>
> to replace it with
>
> gcd 0 0 = 0
>
> (which would be an automatic conseq
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Ben Millwood wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Max Bolingbroke
> wrote:
> >
> > Local declarations at module scope can be emulated using pattern
> bindings:
> >
> > """
> > (foo, bar) = (foo, bar)
> > where
> >foo = ..
> >bar = ..
> >private = .
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/NoDatatypeContexts
+1
--
Underestimating the novelty of the future is a time-honored tradition.
(D.G.)
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listi
Hello Evgenij,
the TDNR proposal seems related to yours:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/TypeDirectedNameResolution
It would be useful to highlight and motivate the differences to help
others judge your proposal.
Cheers,
Sebastian
--
Underestimating the novelty of
On Jul 13, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Christian Maeder wrote:
I'm asking for support of:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/PrefixMinusResolution
The wording in
The operator to the left of prefix -, if there is one, is ignored.
is unfortunate. Said operator is not *ignored* in t
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 meta
rule that bodies of let-expressions
extend as far as possi
On Jan 3, 2010, at 1:03 AM, Cale Gibbard wrote:
nubBy' (y:ys) xs
| elem_by eq y xs = nubBy' ys xs
I wonder why the author of this code did not use "any (eq y)" instead
of "elem_by eq y" as "elem_by" is not exported anyway. Does "elem_by"
compile to more efficient code?
The vers
