[Haskell-cafe] Re: Comments on Haskell 2010 Report

[Simon Marlow]

Alex, many thanks for all these comments, I've fixed all the problems 
you pointed out, except for:

On 09/07/2010 03:25, Alex Stangl wrote:

> 6. In section 3.17.2, the example that is supposed to return
> [undefined,undefined,undefined] seems like it really ought to
> return undefined, although I can see in the description above for ~apat
> matching where the other interpretation would hold.
> I actually tried this in GHC 10.4.2, binding the result to a variable
> and then applying the function length to it, and it comes back with
> undefined, whereas performing "length [undefined,undefined,undefined]"
> returns 3. So it appears that in this case, at least GHC 10.4.2 is
> returning undefined rather than [undefined,undefined,undefined].

did you mean this one?

(\ ~(x:xs) -> x:x:xs) ⊥   ⇒   ⊥:⊥:⊥

it is returning undefined:undefined:undefined, which is different from 
[undefined,undefined,undefined].

> 10. Section 7.1 uses "function" in places where it ought to use "action".
> It seems more correct to describe print as returning an action that
> outputs a value. Most of the "Input Functions" (e.g., getChar,
> getLine, getContents, readLn) should be described as actions,
> not functions. It switches to using the term "operation",
> which seems better, but then reverts back to "function".

This is a larger change, I'll defer it to Haskell 2011 along with some 
other nomenclature-related cleanup I'd like to get done.

> 20. In heading for 20.9.2, quotes around "Set" are not balanced. Both
> are closing quotes. Ditto for 20.10.1, 20.10.2.
and
> 22. In section 38.2, first occurrence of 'dual' has mismatched quotes.
and
> 23. In section 41.1, quotes around "perform" are mismatched. Word
> "function" is mildly misused again here.

the quotes are wrong, but it would be a fiddle to fix it in Haddock, so 
I'm punting on that.

> 25. In section 41.4.4, bullet before isPermissionError isn't rendered
> correctly.

I can't see that - perhaps it has been fixed already.

Cheers,
	Simon