Ian Lynagh wrote:
> Also, order is relevant in many situations with records, e.g.
>
> data Foo = Foo { x :: Char, y :: Bool }
>
> defines Foo :: Char -> Bool -> Foo as well as the corresponding pattern
> constructor
True. Of course the reason is, allowing both positional and named
notation
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 07:06:07PM +, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> Johannes Waldmann wrote:
> >(With that respect, braces in records and let and where are OK,
> >since order is irrelevant, but in do { .. } they are not,
> >but that's how we show our sympathy to C and Java, right.)
>
> You forge
Hello Bulat,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 3:48:45 PM, you wrote:
JW>> When I first learned functional dependencies
JW>> I remember I was really confused by their syntax.
JW>> First, it is hard to find it defined:
BZ> Hugs documentation contains excellent introduction into the fundeps.
namely ch
Johannes Waldmann wrote:
(With that respect, braces in records and let and where are OK,
since order is irrelevant, but in do { .. } they are not,
but that's how we show our sympathy to C and Java, right.)
You forget "let { f [] _ = 1 ; f _ [] = 2 } in f [] []".
-- Ben
_
Hello Johannes,
Thursday, February 02, 2006, 2:17:42 PM, you wrote:
JW> When I first learned functional dependencies
JW> I remember I was really confused by their syntax.
JW> First, it is hard to find it defined:
i should wrote this earlier, but nevertheless:
Hugs documentation contains excell
>Multi-parameter classes with functional dependencies
When I first learned functional dependencies
I remember I was really confused by their syntax.
First, it is hard to find it defined:
The GHC docs have barely three lines
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/type-extensi
