4 ms·

I like some of the differences where it was not constrained by Haskell's choices, like splitting up the Monad, Applicative, Functor instances, and namespacing o

by Tyr42 13y ago

I like some of the differences where it was not constrained by Haskell's choices, like splitting up the Monad, Applicative, Functor instances, and namespacing of accessors. I also quite like the • for compose, with then some shims so that . works too if it's not being used for the namespacing.

anon_d 13y ago
Yeah, I'd like to see more languages using unicode identifiers. Seems to be a very unpopular approach, though :(
- tikhonj 13y ago
  Haskell can do it: there's a library with common Unicode operators[1] (including ∘ for function composition) and an extension allowing you to use Unicode syntax[2] (things like → in place of ->). I've seen these things used, but they're not super common. People still worry about not being able to input Unicode symbols in their editor! I personally think this is absurd in this day and age. Naturally, it's very easy to do in Emacs; somebody even wrote a Haskell input mode[3]. [1]: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-unicode-symbols-0.2.2.4/docs/Prelude-Unicode.html http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-unicode-symbols-0.2.... [2]: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.2.1/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.2.1/html/users_guide/synta... [3]: https://github.com/roelvandijk/emacs-haskell-unicode-input-method https://github.com/roelvandijk/emacs-haskell-unicode-input-m...
  - anon_d 13y ago
    Oh, nice! I setup XCompose to support rfc1345, so I have fast unicode input everywhere. I'm definitely going to experiment with that Haskell extension. I've done that manually before in ML with a preprocessor, but it was a nasty hack. A proper extension is much nicer! EDIT: How many people still have trouble with Unicode input? Should I publish my XCompose solution?
voxfrege 13y ago
It turned out that porting Haskell code was a nightmare when the (.) did not work yet. (You can't just replace each . with • unless you don't have any qualifed names.) Today, it can be quite easy, in the best case you just Ctrl-C Ctrl-V

by Tyr42 13y ago

anon_d 13y ago

Yeah, I'd like to see more languages using unicode identifiers. Seems to be a very unpopular approach, though :(

tikhonj 13y ago
Haskell can do it: there's a library with common Unicode operators[1] (including ∘ for function composition) and an extension allowing you to use Unicode syntax[2] (things like → in place of ->). I've seen these things used, but they're not super common. People still worry about not being able to input Unicode symbols in their editor! I personally think this is absurd in this day and age. Naturally, it's very easy to do in Emacs; somebody even wrote a Haskell input mode[3]. [1]: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-unicode-symbols-0.2.2.4/docs/Prelude-Unicode.html http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-unicode-symbols-0.2.... [2]: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.2.1/html/users_guide/syntax-extns.html http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.2.1/html/users_guide/synta... [3]: https://github.com/roelvandijk/emacs-haskell-unicode-input-method https://github.com/roelvandijk/emacs-haskell-unicode-input-m...
- anon_d 13y ago
  Oh, nice! I setup XCompose to support rfc1345, so I have fast unicode input everywhere. I'm definitely going to experiment with that Haskell extension. I've done that manually before in ML with a preprocessor, but it was a nasty hack. A proper extension is much nicer! EDIT: How many people still have trouble with Unicode input? Should I publish my XCompose solution?

voxfrege 13y ago

It turned out that porting Haskell code was a nightmare when the (.) did not work yet. (You can't just replace each . with • unless you don't have any qualifed names.) Today, it can be quite easy, in the best case you just Ctrl-C Ctrl-V