On 21-Jul-1998, Hans Aberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:38 +0100 98/07/21, Simon L Peyton Jones wrote:
Do you mean "public domain" literally, i.e. are you renouncing all
copyright? (The source code contains copyright notices, but no
licence, as far as I can see.)
No I am not
On 21-Jul-1998, Hans Aberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 23:28 +1000 98/07/21, Fergus Henderson wrote:
I ANAL, but I believe the phrase "public domain" is a well-defined concept.
It does not mean why Simon L Peyton Jones means by it, though.
If something is public domain, then anyone can use it
From: Dinesh Vadhia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fw: Could Haskell be taken over by Microsoft?
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:49:07 -0700
[...]
The situation would change dramatically if say, a Microsoft, picked it up
and ran with it. But they wouldn't do it unless they had full control over
the
I would like to avoid using show all the time for printing strings e.g.
val = "the sum of 2 and 2 is "++(show $ 2 + 2)++" whenever."
I would prefer to type something like:
val = "the sum of 2 and 2 is "./(2+2)./" whenever."
-- i can' find a better haskell compatible operator
Let
CC: Simon L Peyton Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do think that the GNU license would be a mistake -- as I understand, it
would prevent the use of GHC in commercial projects, and I'm pretty sure
that's something Simon wants to *encourage*.
--
From: jfk
Sent: 21 July 1998 20:20
To:
S. Alexander Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Haskell doesn't seem to allow
instance Num (Int-Int) where ...
or
instance Stringable String where ...
How come?
PS I am sure this has been discussed before, but I missed it...
First, Num, needs Eq to be defined. Consider
module T where
I think the way that Hugs 1.3c handles it would meet your goals. All that
it requires is a strict extension to the syntax for patterns to allow type
annotations. These can be useful in their own right, but also can be
applied
to problems like the one that you gave:
f :: [a] - a - [a]
| Michael suggested
|
| f :: [a] - c
| f xs = if len fromInteger 3 then len else 0
| where
| len :: c
| len = length xs
|
| This relies on the 'c' from the type signature scoping over
| the definition, which is on alternative notation for scoped
| type variables.
Hmm,
I would like to avoid using show all the time for printing strings e.g.
val = "the sum of 2 and 2 is "++(show $ 2 + 2)++" whenever."
I would prefer to type something like:
val = "the sum of 2 and 2 is "./(2+2)./" whenever."
-- i can' find a better haskell compatible operator
I
Hi Mark (and all).
I think the way that Hugs 1.3c handles it would meet your goals. All that
it requires is a strict extension to the syntax for patterns to allow type
annotations. These can be useful in their own right, but also can be
applied to problems like the one that you gave:
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:51:47 GMT, you wrote:
CC: Simon L Peyton Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do think that the GNU license would be a mistake -- as I understand, it
would prevent the use of GHC in commercial projects, and I'm pretty sure
that's something Simon wants to *encourage*.
There
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Ralf Hinze wrote:
What about `' for catenation?
I would be more inclined to use . The reason is typing efficiency.
'' is awkward to be typing frequently immediately after '"'.
You are acutally using (.) below. Is there a way to do that (via
Fran like lifting?)?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do think that the GNU license would be a mistake -- as I understand, it
would prevent the use of GHC in commercial projects, and I'm pretty sure
that's something Simon wants to *encourage*.
The GPL explicitly allows commercial use. The commercially problematic
Hi Alex,
| I think the way that Hugs 1.3c handles it ...
| ...
| AKA "Proposal A" in SPJ's recent message on this topic:
|
| http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Haskell/Messages/Display.cgi?id=274
Exactly, although I hadn't been referring to that at the
time. The only negative point for proposal
Ok, back to the main list we go!
| But the problem is that I need the type name c inside the body of
| the function! I'm assuming always that I can solve a typeing
| problem by adding an explicit type signature wherever it's needed;
| however, that implies that I need to be able to get at the
| I would be more inclined to use . The reason is typing efficiency.
| '' is awkward to be typing frequently immediately after '"'.
I do not type that fast ;-).
| You are acutally using (.) below. Is there a way to do that (via
| Fran like lifting?)?
I'm afraid no.
| instance Stringable
-Original Message-
From: Wolfgang Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Could Haskell be taken over by Microsoft?
Step 1: MS introduces Haskell with all their marketing power
Step 2: VisualBasic programmers switch to Haskell
Hi Jeff.
http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Haskell/Messages/Display.cgi?id=274
I think "A" is fine, it's "B" (and hence, SPJ's Composite Motion, A+B)
that worries me, for the reasons I alluded to. If "beefed up A"
does the job, I'm equally happy as with a more conservation syntax for
Sergey Mechveliani writes:
Second, some compilers say at this:
"
(the instance type must be of form (T a b c)
where T is not a synonym, and a,b,c are distinct type variables)
"
Maybe, they treat Int Int as a repeated variable?
Not quite, Int isn't a type variable at all, but an actual
Jeff Lewis:
I'm not sure what the parenthetical comment about the interpretation of a
means -
take the definition at face value.
My point was: were they _intended_ to be same "a", or different? What
is "face value" is surely simply begging the question.
It's not at all clear to me that
Alex Ferguson wrote:
I think the way that Hugs 1.3c handles it would meet your goals. All that
it requires is a strict extension to the syntax for patterns to allow type
annotations. These can be useful in their own right, but also can be
applied to problems like the one that you gave:
Ralf Hinze wrote:
One could also argue that the culprit is Haskell's interpretation of
type variables of which Report (p. 34) says: `[...] the type variables
in a Haskell expression are all assumed to be universally quantified
[..]'. Here is an even more irritating list of possibilities ...
Dinesh Vadhia wrote:
The recent thread of notes to "Could Haskell be taken over by Microsoft?"
bears out what I've been thinking over the past year about Haskell which is
... "How on Earth is this Haskell stuff, not withstanding its merits, ever
going to make it in the real world?". From
| Just as a sanity check, following an augmented proposal "A" where we can also
| annotate the return type as well, consider these:
|
| f :: a - (a - a) - a
| f x = \g - (g :: a - a) x
|
| f (x :: a) :: (a - a) - a = \g - (g :: a - a) x
|
| Which of these two is
This note from Simon says it all precisely and what I alluded to in my
earlier note ...
Dinesh
-Original Message-
From: Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jorgen Frojk Kjaersgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:
Tommy Thorn writes:
Thanks for the report - as a result of constant folding, the compiler
ends up with an Int that is outside the representable range. There's
two ways of looking at this, I guess - one being that the constant
folder should check boundaries before folding (good idea, but
Tommy Thorn writes:
I'm trying to rewrite a small C program and stumbled into an apparent
lack of select. Is this an intentional omission? Notice, that I need
Yes, select()/poll() is not part of POSIX.1 (or POSIX.4). What's
really needed is a library that provides the bits that POSIX
Alex Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi guys. It recently struck me (with concommitant pain) that it'd be
useful if the ghc install script put "versioned" copies (or links)
to _all_ the executables, as it currently does with ghc/ghc-3.02.
This is certainly true of mkdependHS, where the
28 matches
Mail list logo
