ctions proposals like this
> usually see, not to flat out reject the idea of the particular case of this
> instance for IO.
>
> I will say the global 'instance (Applicative f, Monoid m) => Monoid (f m)'
> won't fly for overlap reasons though.
>
> -Edward
bjections proposals like this
usually see, not to flat out reject the idea of the particular case of this
instance for IO.
I will say the global 'instance (Applicative f, Monoid m) => Monoid (f m)'
won't fly for overlap reasons though.
-Edward
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:55 PM,
It seems to me that this should be true for all `f a` like:
instance (Monoid a, Applicative f)=> Monoid (f a) where
mappend = liftA2 mappend
mempty = pure mempty
But I can't seem to find the particular `instance (Monoid a)=> Monoid
(IO a)` anywhere. Would that instance b
Hi Etienne,
thanks for your reply.
> You can use Template Haskell's addDependentFile to register a
> dependency on external files.
>
> http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/template-haskell/2.7.0.0/doc/html/Language-Haskell-TH-Syntax.html#v:addDependentFile
That's interesting. But from wh
Hello Simon,
You can use Template Haskell's addDependentFile to register a
dependency on external files.
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/template-haskell/2.7.0.0/doc/html/Language-Haskell-TH-Syntax.html#v:addDependentFile
You can also put -fforce-recomp in an OPTIONS_GHC pragma to as
Hi,
I'm experimenting with a preprocessor to automatically generate test
drivers[1]. The result depends on the existence of other files on the
disk. When files are added or removed, the test driver has to be
regenerated.
Ideally ghc would just always recompile that single file (akin to make's
.P
t; Preprocessing library zlib-0.4.0.1...
> ghc-6.8.2: unrecognised flags: -F/Users/asmyczek/Library/Frameworks
> Usage: For basic information, try the `--help' option.
> compiling dist/build/Codec/Compression/Zlib/Stream_hsc_make.c failed
> command was: /opt/local/bin/ghc -c -packa
Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:14:30PM +0200, David Sabel wrote:
Hi!
Subject: foldr f (head xs) xs is not the same as foldr1 f xs
I think you forgot about tail:
foldr f (head xs) (tail xs)
Best regards
Tomasz
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
G
* Exception: Prelude.undefined
>
> Perhaps it would be better to change the implementation of foldr1?
Why? *wonders what he's missing* It sounds like a rather silly
claim to me. When changed to
foldr f (head xs) (tail xs) is not the same as foldr1 f xs
^
I
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:14:30PM +0200, David Sabel wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Subject: foldr f (head xs) xs is not the same as foldr1 f xs
I think you forgot about tail:
foldr f (head xs) (tail xs)
Best regards
Tomasz
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mai
Hi!
A small example for the claim mentioned in the subject:
Prelude> let x = 1:undefined in foldr (curry fst) (head x) x
1
Prelude> let x = 1:undefined in foldr1 (curry fst) x
*** Exception: Prelude.undefined
Perhaps it would be better to change the implementation of foldr1?
Cheers,
David
__
>Not? How about
Erm, actually I was trying to be diplomatic... What with MS supporting
GHC's development. I completely agree with the statement about the CLR
straight jacket.
Secondly... I agree with you about multi-parameter type classes and
fundeps enabling you to do this - but thats not Haske
On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 21:20, MR K P SCHUPKE wrote:
> The other area (again MS specific) that F# has better interoperability,
> is .NET . F# (notice similarity to C#) is a funtional language within
> the .NET framework - hence supports the 'COM' style interface within
> t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Generally, phrases such as "XYZ is excellent within certain niches"
> sounds like cheap propaganda to me. If you replace Haskell by Linux, I
> am sure you'll find similar statements on other Microsoft web pages ;
gt; I agree. It's been changed now, however:
>
> "Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent
> within certain niches, but non-trivial problems exist
> with language interoperability between lazy and strict
> languages."
>
> Given yo
f marshalling is pretty complex compared
to usual Visual-Basic fare...
The other area (again MS specific) that F# has better interoperability,
is .NET . F# (notice similarity to C#) is a funtional language within
the .NET framework - hence supports the 'COM' style interface within
the languag
trivial problems exist
with language interoperability between lazy and strict
languages."
Given your work on FFI, would you care to comment? I wonder if F# really
is as obviously preferable to a "Haskell#" as they claim?
--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
___
On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 10:07, John Sharley wrote:
> I note this remark on the Microsoft Research site
> (http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/fsharp.aspx)
>
> Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent within certain
> niches, but unfortunately some simple programming exercises ca
> > Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent
> > within certain niches, but non-trivial problems exist with language
> > interoperability between lazy and strict languages.
> >
> > I believe that is uncontroversial.
Actually, I think Haskell has one of the better language interopera
; wrapper for Win32 is fairly simple in C#, pretty hard in F#, and
> really quite researchy in Haskell - but others obviously don't agree.
>
> Replaced with
>
> Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent
> within certain niches, but non-trivial problems exist w
On 21 May 2004 01:07, John Sharley wrote:
> I note this remark on the Microsoft Research site
> (http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/fsharp.aspx)
>
> Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent within certain
> niches, but unfortunately some simple programming exercises can
> qu
> but unfortunately some simple programming exercises can quickly turn
> into problems that require a PhD. to solve.
Of course you could say that the excersise is not actaully as simple
as you believe, and other languages will let you get away with stuff
you really shouldn't be doing.
A good exam
I note this remark on the Microsoft Research site
(http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/fsharp.aspx)
Purely functional languages like Haskell are excellent within certain
niches, but unfortunately some simple programming exercises can quickly turn
into problems that require a PhD. to solve.
Sorry for the stupidity... just found the -I option...
Although it is a bit frustrating when an FFI program that used to compile
stops when you add supposedly "harmless" options such as -O or -prof. Might
be worth adding a section to the FFI section of the manual about using the
-I flag when compi
24 matches
Mail list logo
