[Haskell-cafe] overloaded list literals?
lemming at henning-thielemann.de
Mon Sep 6 06:43:34 EDT 2010
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
> We have overloaded numerical literals (Num.fromInteger)
> and we can overload string literals (IsString.fromString),
> so how about using list syntax ( , : )
> for anything list-like (e.g., Data.Sequence)?
My favorite solution would be to throw away special list syntax and list
comprehensions at all. Then lists and sets are on the same level of
a perfect way to write lists. Analogously to this we could have an
infix operator that is overloaded with (:) for lists and Set.insert for
> Of course some "minor details" would need to be worked out,
> like what methods should go in the hypothetical "class IsList"
> (is is Foldable?) and what to do about pattern matching
> (perhaps we don't need it?)
> IIRC there was a time when list comprehension
> would actually mean monad comprehension
> (when there was no "do" notation)
> but that's not what I'm getting at here. Or is it?
> Do we have a "Haskell museum" of ideas from the past?
I think the future ideas collected at the old Hawiki would serve as such
museum. Unfortunately Hawiki is gone. I wonder whether I can easily get a
dump of HaskellWiki in order to prevent it from the same destiny.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe