Isaac Dupree writes:
My proposal:
>> A module may be defined in a file with a name corresponding to the
>> module name, or any dot-separated prefix of it. I.e. the file
>> Foo/Bar.hs will define module Foo.Bar and optionally Foo.Bar.Baz as
>> well.
> Note though, that local modules tempt us to
On 4 Jan 2009, at 07:11, Thomas DuBuisson wrote:
My proposal would be for each selector name to be a special type of
"phantom" type class (existing in the intermediate language only).
This type class would not be accessible by the programmer and thus
s/he couldn't make a polymorphic function fo
Cafe,
I was going to write about this earlier, but I'm so ill read on the
record selector papers that I deleted the draft.
My proposal would be for each selector name to be a special type of
"phantom" type class (existing in the intermediate language only).
This type class would not be accessible
Ketil Malde wrote:
> A module may be defined in a file with a name corresponding to the
> module name, or any dot-separated prefix of it? I.e. the file
> Foo/Bar.hs will define module Foo.Bar and optionally Foo.Bar.Baz as
> well?
>
> GHC should then be able to find it, and I believe it already has
Isaac Dupree writes:
> Derek Elkins wrote:
>> I haven't been able to find any semantic difficulties with this
>> addition.
> I like it too... what I run into is that there's an implicit
> assumption that module of name Foo.Bar.Baz *must* be found in a file
> Foo/Bar/Baz.[l]hs .
Ah, surely mer
Miguel Mitrofanov schrieb:
> module Element where
> import QName
> import ...
> data Element = Element {name :: QName, attribs :: [Attr], content ::
> [Content], line :: Maybe Line}
>
> module Attr where
> import QName
> import ...
> data Attr = Attr {key :: QName, val :: String}
>
> module QNam
Derek Elkins wrote:
I haven't been able to find any semantic difficulties with this
addition.
I like it too... what I run into is that there's an implicit
assumption that module of name Foo.Bar.Baz *must* be found
in a file Foo/Bar/Baz.[l]hs . "module Main" seems to be the
only one exempted
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 23:48 +0300, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
> >>
> >> module Main where
> >> import qualified QName as Q
> >> import qualified Element as E
> >> ... Q.name ... E.name ...
> >
> > I'm using this pattern of writing code and, so far, I find it very
> > convenient. Yet, the code is like
module Main where
import qualified QName as Q
import qualified Element as E
... Q.name ... E.name ...
I'm using this pattern of writing code and, so far, I find it very
convenient. Yet, the code is likely to be spread across lots of files,
which is not always a Good Thing.
That's a completely
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 15:20 +0100, Felix Martini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There is currently a discussion on reddit/programming about Haskell.
> One complaint is that Haskell functions often use abbreviated names. I
> tend to agree with that. In my personal experience it generally takes
> more time to
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
> module Element where
> import QName
> import ...
> data Element = Element {name :: QName, attribs :: [Attr], content ::
> [Content], line :: Maybe Line}
>
> module Attr where
> import QName
> import ...
> data Attr = Attr {key :: QName, va
module Element where
import QName
import ...
data Element = Element {name :: QName, attribs :: [Attr], content ::
[Content], line :: Maybe Line}
module Attr where
import QName
import ...
data Attr = Attr {key :: QName, val :: String}
module QName where
import ...
data QName = QName {name :: S
Hi all,
There is currently a discussion on reddit/programming about Haskell.
One complaint is that Haskell functions often use abbreviated names. I
tend to agree with that. In my personal experience it generally takes
more time to learn a third party Haskell library than libraries
written in other
13 matches
Mail list logo
