Newest at the top
| 2025-12-01 17:28:17 +0100 | <lambdabot> | Safe atMay :: [a] -> Int -> Maybe a |
| 2025-12-01 17:28:17 +0100 | <lambdabot> | GHC.List (!?) :: [a] -> Int -> Maybe a |
| 2025-12-01 17:28:17 +0100 | <lambdabot> | Data.List (!?) :: [a] -> Int -> Maybe a |
| 2025-12-01 17:28:16 +0100 | <Leary> | @hoogle [a] -> Int -> Maybe a |
| 2025-12-01 17:28:11 +0100 | <merijn> | lucabtz: "\l n -> listToMaybe $ drop n l" :p |
| 2025-12-01 17:28:08 +0100 | <lucabtz> | https://hackage.haskell.org/package/errors-2.3.0/docs/Control-Error-Safe.html#v:atZ this looks more general |
| 2025-12-01 17:27:36 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | there is atMay here https://hackage.haskell.org/package/safe-0.3.21/docs/Safe.html |
| 2025-12-01 17:27:32 +0100 | <lucabtz> | i found atZ using hoogle though |
| 2025-12-01 17:27:22 +0100 | <lucabtz> | sad |
| 2025-12-01 17:27:14 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | no |
| 2025-12-01 17:27:00 +0100 | <lucabtz> | there is no [a] -> Int -> Maybe a safe list indexing in base? |
| 2025-12-01 17:26:46 +0100 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d75-159-126-101.abhsia.telus.net) machinedgod |
| 2025-12-01 17:26:45 +0100 | <merijn> | Proportional font should be a crime |
| 2025-12-01 17:26:07 +0100 | <lucabtz> | though if you have only one binding i think your style is more readable |
| 2025-12-01 17:25:54 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | programming haskell with a proportional font is mostly feasible only if you only read your own code though :p |
| 2025-12-01 17:25:33 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | a colleague of mine does that |
| 2025-12-01 17:25:29 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | another reason to not use my style: if you program with a proportional font |
| 2025-12-01 17:25:12 +0100 | <lucabtz> | :p |
| 2025-12-01 17:24:55 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | I don't have that opinion but I respect you having it :p |
| 2025-12-01 17:24:32 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | I see |
| 2025-12-01 17:24:27 +0100 | <lucabtz> | it is 4 but i dont like that the style imposes 4 to be used |
| 2025-12-01 17:23:52 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | yeah also possible |
| 2025-12-01 17:23:35 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | lucabtz: what's your preferred indentation size? |
| 2025-12-01 17:23:35 +0100 | <merijn> | tomsmeding: tbh, I'd probably rewrite that to use `concat` to simplify line-wrapping the string too |
| 2025-12-01 17:23:15 +0100 | <lucabtz> | so for one binding that option works well, but for multiple ones idk |
| 2025-12-01 17:23:11 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | #rekt takes me back to high school |
| 2025-12-01 17:22:54 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | :p |
| 2025-12-01 17:22:52 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | I guess, yes, in this case |
| 2025-12-01 17:22:51 +0100 | <merijn> | #rekt |
| 2025-12-01 17:22:46 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | oh |
| 2025-12-01 17:22:39 +0100 | <merijn> | tomsmeding: Your return type is IO? |
| 2025-12-01 17:22:37 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | lucabtz: yep, true |
| 2025-12-01 17:22:26 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | it suggests a monad where there is none |
| 2025-12-01 17:22:21 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | I disagree with "simplified" |
| 2025-12-01 17:22:20 +0100 | <lucabtz> | if you put let x = y \n then in the new line the alignment works well only if you tab with four spaces |
| 2025-12-01 17:22:12 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | and that is better how? :P |
| 2025-12-01 17:22:02 +0100 | <merijn> | tomsmeding: Also, that example is trivially simplified by using do and it's let sugar, letting you skip the in entirely :p |
| 2025-12-01 17:22:02 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | merijn: ah |
| 2025-12-01 17:21:42 +0100 | <merijn> | tomsmeding: No, not top level nested in the where of printStats |
| 2025-12-01 17:21:41 +0100 | <lucabtz> | if you have a new-line and indentation it works with any kind of indentation you have |
| 2025-12-01 17:21:28 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | but 'let' already syntactically requires the bindings to be aligned |
| 2025-12-01 17:21:21 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | oh for sure |
| 2025-12-01 17:21:15 +0100 | <lucabtz> | i didnt mean to align the body with the bindings, just the bidings need to be aligned |
| 2025-12-01 17:20:56 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | right, that's possible |
| 2025-12-01 17:20:50 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | merijn: more top-level functions you mean? |
| 2025-12-01 17:20:21 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | hence my preference for using "in x", not "in x" or " in x" as some people do; I would accept "in x" if your argument is "I want the body to be indented at a multiple of 2 spaces" |
| 2025-12-01 17:20:17 +0100 | <merijn> | lucabtz: The problem is the in :p |
| 2025-12-01 17:19:59 +0100 | <merijn> | defining a name implementation per case, with their own where :p |
| 2025-12-01 17:19:37 +0100 | <merijn> | tomsmeding: That's solved easily by using more where |
| 2025-12-01 17:19:26 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | on the contrary! The body of the let-binding is _not_ part of the list of bindings, so my opinion is that by aligning them, you're incorrectly suggesting a relationship that's not there |