Hello!
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 12:43:11AM -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
{-# notInline test #-}
test :: IORef [a]
test = unsafePerformIO $ newIORef []
main = do
writeIORef test [42]
bang - readIORef test
print (bang :: [Char])
[...]
Hmmm. The type of test should
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 00:36:27 +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 12:43:11AM -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
{-# notInline test #-}
test :: IORef [a]
test = unsafePerformIO $ newIORef []
main = do
writeIORef test [42]
bang - readIORef test
In a recent discussion with Manuel Chakravarty the following question
arose. Given the following code:
foo = do
ba - newMutableByteArray ...
...
bar ba
-- ba not used here anymore
foreign import ... bar :: MutableByteArray ... - IO ()
Let's further assume that bar
- gcc 2.95 compatibility
What's that specifically?
I ask, because I'm using OpenBSD, and am usually bootstrapping
new versions with an old 3.02 installation, because of the
occasional problems with compiling ghc with a *slightly* older
ghc (when some functions change at a time
The best thing to do is use the anoncvs repository, and just 'cvs update' to
get the latest patches. If you're running over a phone line then it might
help to make ssh do some compression.
Yes, but this requires at least one complete checkout. Of course, after
this is done, cvs update will
Hello!
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 05:48:30AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
[...]
- gcc 2.95 compatibility
What's that specifically?
I ask, because I'm using OpenBSD, and am usually bootstrapping
new versions with an old 3.02 installation, because of the
occasional problems with compiling
Hello!
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 03:55:39AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
[...]
- BugZilla (the Mozilla bug tracker). Web/CGI based,
uses an SQL database. Does just about everything
under the sun, probably a bit heavyweight for us.
Does anyone have any experience with
Hello!
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 09:41:22PM +0900, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
[...]
Better make it work with Corba, which is the basement of the IPC used
for Gnome, but not only that. For a first touch, one could use the
standard C mapping via the GHC FFI (is that implemented in other
Juergen Pfitzenmaier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
P I dont't care very much how fast a program runs. I care about how
P long it takes me to write it. If you take a programming task of
P reasonable complexity you will finish *months* earlier using a
P --good-- functional language instead of C++.
P
P
At 10:41 21/09/99 GMT, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
...
I have to care how fast my programs run.
...
I had to write and maintain a boring program calculating lots of
numbers from matrices, trying various permutations of rows and columns,
joining rows and columns, generating random matrices
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) writes:
I have to care how fast my programs run. I like writing in Haskell
very much, it's my favorite general-purpose language, but one of the
biggest weak points of Haskell for me is poor efficiency (at least
with ghc, I don't know how fast are
Bjorn Lisper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* While Sisal is arguably nice than Fortran, it doesn't
really provide a new killer feature - rewriting all this
Fortran code, just for getting nice programs is maybe not
enough of an incentive.
As
-Original Message-
From: Manuel M. T. Chakravarty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 4:35 AM
...
* While Sisal is arguably nice than Fortran, it doesn't
really provide a new killer feature - rewriting all this
Fortran code, just for getting nice
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* While Sisal is arguably nice than Fortran, it doesn't
really provide a new killer feature - rewriting all this
Fortran code, just for getting nice programs is maybe not
enough of an incentive.
As I remember it, a main argument for Sisal was
Crossposted to the SAC mailing list because I'm curious to learn whether
there is any chance to get the best of both worlds..
{-
Summary for the readers of sac-list: this is from a thread on the Haskell
mailing-list, discussing the old problem of whether functional language
implementations
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 02:53:03PM +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
Functional programming, i.e., programming with functions, is possible in
languages that do not support all features that have become common in
many functional languages.
[eg.
Such questions are bound to end up in language wars. I'll try a neutral
approach below to stop this sub-thread right here and now, but if anyone
really wants to follow this question any further, may I suggest to take
this general part of the discussion to comp.lang.functional?
On Wed, Sep 22,
Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:26:03 +0400 (MSD), S.D.Mechveliani [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
So far, no clear progrm example appeared in this list to demonstrate
Haskell's in-efficiency in comparison to other languages.
I have not done benchmarking myself yet, but in
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 09:44:34AM +0200, Bjorn Lisper wrote:
Sisal was an attempt to define precisely such a functional language.
...
no higher order functions
Uhh... have I misunderstood what functional programming is? Isn't
higher-order function support a necessary part of every FP
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 04:57:58PM +0100, D. Tweed wrote:
Firstly let me check that we mean the same thing by _higher order
functions, namely they are functions which return functions
... or take functions as parameters. Such as map, foldr, iterate, etc.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho %
I have been polishing the colorparam,,/param"Fast,
Error Correcting Parser Combinators"/color, and as a result they are
now so much faster (for some applications more than three times) that
you may consider downloading the newest version from
S.D.Mechveliani wrote:
Thus, the recent example with the Cryptarithm solver was a very
in-correct comparison, due to the unknown permutation generating
order.
I did not study the problem in detail, but I think giving it
an unsolvable puzzle would force it to try *all* permutations,
thus
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 02:53:03PM +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
Functional programming, i.e., programming with functions, is possible in
languages that do not support all features that have become common in
many functional languages.
[eg. higher-order functions]
Well then, it appears that I
23 matches
Mail list logo
