SBLP 2003 - call for papers

- CALL FOR PAPERS SBLP 2003 - 7th BRAZILIAN SYMPOSIUM ON PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil - May 28-30, 2003 http://www.inf.pucminas.br/sblp2003

quantum computing, monads, and FP in general

Hi All, I realize most people are currently at PLI and that this might not be the most appropriate place to bring up such questions. Nevertheless, there are smarter and more knowledgable people on this mailing list than most other places I know of, so here it goes. Does anyone know if anyone

Re: quantum computing, monads, and FP in general

Hello, One very thing to keep in mind about quantum computing is that all computations are reversible because the evolution over time of a quantum system is represented by unitary operators (in a Hilbert space) on elements in the particular HS. In QC, the spaces are finite dimensional where

Re: quantum computing, monads, and FP in general

Hello, Byron wrote: "However, the computational burden of doing this is massive, supposedly too massive for current digital computers." The main reason for the parallelism of QC is that we are dealing with tensor spaces. The ACM publised in Computing Surveys a very nice overview of

[GHCi 5.04.1] the `impossible' happened

[Indented text is me; unindented text is GHCi] Initial experience with the bug: *Autoexi let x e = do putStrLn hmm...; return 'c' *Autoexi y - catch (getChar) (x) here, I hit ^C several times, hoping to catch that as an exception. This didn't seem to happen, and GHCi appeared to still

IO security

Hi GHC users, I'm looking for secure compile and run-time methods to ensure automatically that Haskell modules cannot perform particular IO operations. Therefore, I've got some questions that might be interesting for other people using GHC as well. o There are functions like

Re: IO security

o There are functions like unsafePerformIO. How many of these unsafe functions exist and what are their names? Is there It depends on what you count as unsafe. There's also unsafeIOToST, which is just as unsafe (You can write unsafePerformIO using this -- see a message to the haskell

Question about the notation of (# ... #)

Hi, can somebody explain what the notation (# ... #) means? For example it is used in the definition of unsafePerformIO: unsafePerformIO :: IO a - a unsafePerformIO (IO m) = case m realWorld# of (# _, r #) - r Thanks, David ___

Re: Question about the notation of (# ... #)

This means its an unboxed tuple. See recent thread about boxed vs. unboxed. -- Hal Daume III Computer science is no more about computers| [EMAIL PROTECTED] than astronomy is about telescopes. -Dijkstra | www.isi.edu/~hdaume On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, David Sabel wrote: Hi, can somebody

Re: IO security

probably the safest (but not necesarilly the easiest) way to go about this is start with an actual type-checking tool, such as the front end to one of the compilers or hatchet http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~bjpop/hatchet.html and use it to extract every expression of type ∃a . IO a , since your