I am pleased to announce the initial release of hsclock,
another gtk+hs applet I've written.
hsclock is an accurate multi-zone gtk clock, which can also
run in a tty.
hsclock uses gtk timeouts to synchronise the time updates to
occur on the second or minute tick (dependent on the clock
format
I guess it's a [mis]feature, since 5.00 worked, but can hardly
imagine anybody could need it.
===
Prelude h-IO.openFile /dev/zero IO.ReadMode
*** Exception: unsupported operation
Action: openFile
Reason: unknown file type
File: /dev/rtf0
Prelude Leaving GHCi.
max@max$cat
Ch. A. Herrmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In contrast, 0*x=0, thus 0 divides 0 (somehow).
: But I have problems with gcd being the greatest positive integer ...
[snip]
: - 0 is not positive, it is non-negative or natural
: - 2 also divides 0 and 2 is a greater integer than 0
: (0 is the
I am pleased to announce the initial release of hsclock,
another gtk+hs applet I've written.
hsclock is an accurate multi-zone gtk clock, which can also
run in a tty.
hsclock uses gtk timeouts to synchronise the time updates to
occur on the second or minute tick (dependent on the clock
format
Alan Bawden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:In case it isn't clear already, these definitions make a lattice on
:the positive integers, with divides ~ leq, gcd ~ meet and lcm ~ join,
:using the report's definitions of gcd and lcm.
:
: Indeed, that's a nice way of putting it. How about
| Anyway, what should the report say? I think it is reasonable
| to expect that stdin stdout should both be unbuffered in
| order for interact to work right. So the defn of interact should be
|
| interact f = do
| hSetBuffering stdin NoBuffering -- new
| hSetBuffering stdout
[ o Apologies for multiple messages.
o Please register and make hotel reservations as soon as possible since
both deadlines are approaching fast (Dec. 27th)
].
You are cordially invited to the Fourth International Symposium on
Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages that will be
Simon == Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Christoph does not like this
It's OK if the definition is clear; it wasn't using
the words positive or greatest integer.
Stating gcd 0 0 = 0 explicitly is a good thing,
even if it could be expressed verbatim;
people may think
Title: Message
Thanks !
Now, a small follow-up question: if I subsequently
test 2 Instances whether they were instantiated with the same Attributes value,
as in
test (Instance a1 _) (Instance a2 _) =
(a1==a2)
will this be implemented efficiently ? I.e. will it
check first whether the
Frank Dellaert asks:
test (Instance a1 _) (Instance a2 _) = (a1==a2)
will this be implemented efficiently ? I.e. will it check first whether the
pointers happen to be the same, and only then do a full Eq comparison ?
No, otherwise you might also expect that the following test' function:
From: Marc van Dongen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:32:49 +
Alan Bawden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Indeed, that's a nice way of putting it. How about if the report just
: says:
:
:In order to make the non-negative integers into a lattice under `gcd'
:and
Hello,
you can count me as a newbie in functional programming. I'm attempting to
define a function that computes the value of x^y for whole numbers. Intuively
(all efficiency considerations aside) I would start with something like this:
power x y
| x == 0= 0
| y == 0
Lars Henrik Mathiesen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Alan Bawden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: : Indeed, that's a nice way of putting it. How about if the report just
: : says:
: :
: :In order to make the non-negative integers into a lattice under `gcd'
: :and `lcm', we define `gcd
Simon == Simon Peyton-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Christoph does not like this
I still don't like this. 0 has never, and will never, divide anything,
in particular not 0. 0 may be a prime factor of 0 (see also below!),
but that is different. It is not the greatest (in the
On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 06:00:30PM +0100, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Why? If EVERY natural number is to have a prime factorisation, then BOTH
0 AND 1 have to be promoted to prime numbers;
1 has a perfectly fine prime factorization. It is the product of 0 primes,
the null product. (A null product
The general meaning of `having a prime factorization' is that every
non-zero element is uniquely a product of a unit and a product of
primes. The algebraic structures where unique factorizations live are
`unique factorization domains' (UFDs) of which a central class is formed
by the ring of
Why not define gcd a b as the largest (in 'normal' order) integer d such
that the set of sums of
multiples of a and b {na+mb | n - Z, m - Z} is equal to the set of
multiples of d
{nd | n - Z}? Easy to understand, no talk of division, lattices, rings,
ideals etcetera, and it covers the cases with
Sorry for an error in my previous message. The definition there of a gcd
works only in a prinicpal ideal domain (which covers all the rings
mentioned in the examples). According to Bourbaki, chapter on ordered
groups, the gcd of two non-zero elements of a UFD A is well-defined as
an element of
18 matches
Mail list logo
