4 ms·
The post is a bit of fluff, but the paper is better. Haskell already has GADTs, as the paper points out. Those of you crying out for examples, just read the pap
by baguasquirrel 16y ago
The post is a bit of fluff, but the paper is better. Haskell already has GADTs, as the paper points out. Those of you crying out for examples, just read the paper. The real gem are these extensible kinds, which I haven't seen mentioned in Haskell before.
I don't mean to keep throwing water on the fire but the research community already made trees that can't be unbalanced because they wouldn't typecheck, by encoding the depth of the tree into its type. Okasaki demonstrated the concept in Haskell, I believe. Getting it to work for RB-trees sounds new though.
- thesz 16y agohttp://hackage.haskell.org/package/she http://hackage.haskell.org/package/she - "The Strathclyde Haskell Enhancement is a somewhat inglorious bodge, equipping ghc with automatic lifting of types to kinds, pattern synonyms, and some kit for higgledy-piggledy literate programming." From one of the authors of Epigram: http://e-pig.org http://e-pig.org I heard they intend to include functionality of SHE into GHC.