Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Programming > Functional > Re: Overloaded ...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 6 of 31 Topic 2745 of 3037
Post > Topic >>

Re: Overloaded unification

by "David B. Benson" <dbenson@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jan 27, 2008 at 12:36 PM

On Jan 27, 8:34 am, rossb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
....
> AFAICS, that's possible with multi-parameter type cl*****. ...

Andreas, thank you!  I'll look into this further.

> On the other hand, I don't see why anybody in his sane mind would ever
> want to have something that ad-hoc

This example arises because the strongly preferred single
special character for infix indexing is '@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
'.  IMO, it was a
mistake to use up this symbol for list append.  Probably '^^'
would have been better.

Of course, with a new language (Kamiaken), even if only a
slight variant on SML, one could always provide a translator
SML ~~> Kamiaken
to avoid this particular problem.  However, it provides an
easily understood example of ad-hoc polymorphism, which
Kamaiken is to provide in some form or other.  Once provided,
I cannot control how badly it will be misused.
 




 31 Posts in Topic:
Overloaded unification
"David B. Benson&quo  2008-01-25 13:30:40 
Re: Overloaded unification
Jon Harrop <usenet@[EM  2008-01-26 02:31:04 
Re: Overloaded unification
"David B. Benson&quo  2008-01-26 11:12:00 
Re: Overloaded unification
Jon Harrop <usenet@[EM  2008-01-26 22:58:21 
Re: Overloaded unification
rossberg@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-01-27 08:34:18 
Re: Overloaded unification
"David B. Benson&quo  2008-01-27 12:36:18 
Re: Overloaded unification
"David B. Benson&quo  2008-01-27 13:35:54 
Re: Overloaded unification
rossberg@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-01-28 00:18:00 
Re: Overloaded unification
Jon Harrop <usenet@[EM  2008-01-28 08:28:01 
Re: Overloaded unification
Florian Weimer <fw@[EM  2008-01-28 11:20:41 
Re: Overloaded unification
"David B. Benson&quo  2008-01-28 10:29:00 
Re: Overloaded unification
Neelakantan Krishnaswami   2008-01-28 23:38:56 
Re: Overloaded unification
"David B. Benson&quo  2008-01-28 12:01:13 
Re: Overloaded unification
rossberg@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-01-28 13:35:44 
Re: Overloaded unification
torbenm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-01-29 10:18:25 
Re: Overloaded unification
Neelakantan Krishnaswami   2008-01-25 22:27:03 
Re: Overloaded unification
"David B. Benson&quo  2008-01-28 14:29:28 
Re: Overloaded unification
"David B. Benson&quo  2008-01-28 14:31:29 
Re: Overloaded unification
Christian Maeder <Chri  2008-01-29 09:21:49 
Re: Overloaded unification
Florian Weimer <fw@[EM  2008-01-29 01:21:03 
Re: Overloaded unification
Chris F Clark <cfc@[EM  2008-01-29 00:15:03 
Re: Overloaded unification
rossberg@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-01-29 02:56:52 
Re: Overloaded unification
rossberg@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-01-29 03:06:50 
Re: Overloaded unification
rossberg@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-01-29 03:19:59 
Re: Overloaded unification
"David B. Benson&quo  2008-01-29 12:04:54 
Re: Overloaded unification
torbenm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-01-30 12:29:01 
Re: Overloaded unification
rossberg@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-01-30 04:20:37 
Re: Overloaded unification
"David B. Benson&quo  2008-01-30 10:10:13 
new Fortrans (was Re: Overloaded unification)
raould <raould@[EMAIL   2008-02-14 14:06:33 
Re: new Fortrans (was Re: Overloaded unification)
Jon Harrop <usenet@[EM  2008-02-15 06:13:47 
Re: new Fortrans (was Re: Overloaded unification)
"David B. Benson&quo  2008-02-14 16:51:25 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Fri Oct 10 21:16:10 CDT 2008.