Christopher Brown wrote:
Christian,
Did you try the switch -fallow-overlapping-instances when compiling?
Yes, but it doesn't seem to make much difference.
Maybe a couple of more library files have not been translated with the
above flag.
Davey == Davey dude [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Davey Im new to Haskell, hugs in particular, and was hoping you could
Davey help me solve a problem. It should be pretty easy. I have to
Davey use hugs to create an expression data Exp = Plus Exp Exp| Sub
Davey Exp Exp| Mult Exp Exp| Power Exp Exp |
Suppose the following happens:
(1) Thread A calls readChan on an empty channel and waits
(2) Thread B puts something to the read-end of the channel using unGetChan
When a GHC program does this, both threads are blocked! Is it the
behaviour we really want for unGetChan, or should we fix the
Hi,
I am trying to use Strafunski with GHC 6.5 and was wondering if
someone could help me. I have all the instances for Term and Typeable
defined for my data types, but when I try to compile with GHC 6.5 I
get lots of overlapping instance errors. In particular, it seems
the instances I
Hi Chris,
Changes in the libraries of GHC have broken Strafunski compatibility
in the past. I have not upgraded to GHC 6.5 myself so I'm not sure if
this is the case again. Which versions of DrIFT and Strafunski are
you using?
Based on what you write, it seems new instances for Typeable
Joost,
Thanks very much - this solved my problem!
Cheers
Chris.
On 3 Apr 2006, at 17:03, Joost Visser wrote:
Hi Chris,
Changes in the libraries of GHC have broken Strafunski
compatibility in the past. I have not upgraded to GHC 6.5 myself so
I'm not sure if this is the case again.
I managed, with the help of some custom hacks, to convert Simon's
tarball of the haskell@ archives from 1990-2000 into html.
I've hosted the lot here:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/haskell-1990-2000/threads.html
I'm not sure these archives are available anywhere else, other than the
dons:
I managed, with the help of some custom hacks, to convert Simon's
tarball of the haskell@ archives from 1990-2000 into html.
By the way, this was in the context of writing up the HWN-style news
over that decade, here:
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Old_news
-- Don
In case anyone was wondering what this state-threads thing I keep
talking about is, here is a sample implementation (in C) as well as a
lot of documentation and FAQs that apply to haskell as well.
http://state-threads.sourceforge.net/
it should be noted that the chief disadvantage of state
On 31 March 2006 13:41, John Meacham wrote:
I have tried to summarize the current thinking into a proposal on the
wiki.
http://haskell.galois.com/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/Concurrenc
y
I split it into 3 parts.
the standard - all haskell' compilers must implement
optional
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 02:30:30PM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
new stacks can be allocated by alloca() calls. all these
alloca-allocated stack segments can be used as pool of stacks assigned
to the forked threads. although i don't tried this, my own library
also used processor-specific
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 01:15:03PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 04:21:26PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Great. Apart from my misgivings about allowing cooperative scheduling
at all, here's a few comments on the proposal:
much much preferable to a standard that not
Hello John,
Monday, April 3, 2006, 12:53:05 PM, you wrote:
new stacks can be allocated by alloca() calls. all these
alloca-allocated stack segments can be used as pool of stacks assigned
to the forked threads. although i don't tried this, my own library
also used processor-specific method.
GHC 6.4 has rather conservative constraints on instances to guarantee
termination. GHC 6.5 has more liberal constraints; see
http://haskell.galois.com/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/FlexibleInstances
Unfortunately instances generated by newtype-deriving need not satisfy
either of these
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 11:38:08AM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 01:15:03PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 04:21:26PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Great. Apart from my misgivings about allowing cooperative scheduling
at all, here's a few comments
John Meacham wrote (... but I've reordered things):
My only real 'must-have' is that the 4 modes all can be explicitly and
unambiguously specified. I have opinions on the syntax/hints but
that is
more flexable.
I basically agree (the syntax discussion will take place in the years
after
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your reply.
Starting from YHC porting pages the only source for Win32 port I
found is WinHaskell.
[http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~ndm/projects/winhaskell.php]
I have not yet found which port it is: Hugs, YHc, ...?
Also there is a thing called WinHugs at
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006, Jared Updike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something like distribute fst (==) where
distribute f op x y = f x `op` f y
A function like this has been suggested for the standard libraries a
couple of times before. Someone suggested the name on, which I quite
like:
(*) `on` f
I've revised my thinking about printing (total, finite) functions: I
should have respected the notion that a printed representation can be
cut-and-pasted back in at the prompt for evaluation to something equal
to the original. I've also revised my implementation to this effect, so
that
Neil Mitchell wrote:
The indentation rules are quite complex, but just type your code
sensibly indented and it will probably just work.
My biggest problem in this area was following haskell-mode's defaults
too strictly. I found that things ended up indented more than was
necessary for clear
Hi,
Starting from YHC porting pages the only source for Win32 port I
found is WinHaskell.
[http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~ndm/projects/winhaskell.php]
That's an entirely separate project, it just uses Yhc/GHC/Hugs.
Thats the things about the Yhc port to Windows - its not a port, Yhc
just
Often when writing algorithms which involve set operations on small
enumerations, I start off using Data.Set. I soon find performance
requires rewriting that code to use bitwise operations. I miss the
nice interface of Data.Set and the type checking of using a proper
data type.
So, as
Hi Ralf,
I'm looking for a function like extT but with more general type:
(t a - s a) - (t b - s b) - (t a - s a)
Is there such a thing in the generics library?
Thanks,
Frederik
--
http://ofb.net/~frederik/
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
David F. Place d at vidplace.com writes:
I'm currently writing and evolution to the standard collection package that can
be found here:
http://darcs.haskell.org/packages/collections/
We integrate your module there. What would you say?
Cheers,
JP.
Hi,
I am trying to use Strafunski with GHC 6.5 and was wondering if
someone could help me. I have all the instances for Term and Typeable
defined for my data types, but when I try to compile with GHC 6.5 I
get lots of overlapping instance errors. In particular, it seems
the instances I
Christopher Brown wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to use Strafunski with GHC 6.5 and was wondering if someone
could help me. I have all the instances for Term and Typeable defined
for my data types, but when I try to compile with GHC 6.5 I get lots of
overlapping instance errors. In particular, it
Christian,
Did you try the switch -fallow-overlapping-instances when compiling?
Yes, but it doesn't seem to make much difference.
Cheers,
Chris.
Cheers Christian
Christopher Brown
PhD Student, University of Kent.
http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/rpg/cmb21/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Apr 3, 2006, at 10:02 AM, Jean-Philippe Bernardy wrote:
I'm currently writing and evolution to the standard collection
package that can
be found here:
http://darcs.haskell.org/packages/collections/
We integrate your module there. What would you say?
Sure. I'd be honored.
Hi Chris,
Changes in the libraries of GHC have broken Strafunski compatibility
in the past. I have not upgraded to GHC 6.5 myself so I'm not sure if
this is the case again. Which versions of DrIFT and Strafunski are
you using?
Based on what you write, it seems new instances for Typeable
It solves sudoku puzzles. (What pleasure do people get by doing
these in their heads?!?)
probably the same you get from writing programs?-) figuring out the
rules, not getting lost in complexity, making something difficult work..
They are probably asking the same question: why take hours
Claus Reinke wrote:
It solves sudoku puzzles. (What pleasure do people get by doing
these in their heads?!?)
probably the same you get from writing programs?-) figuring out the
rules, not getting lost in complexity, making something difficult work..
From a human standpoint, there are
Chris wrote:
You need more than 5 examples. The truly evil puzzles are rarer than that.
Go
get the set of minimal puzzles and see how far your logic takes you.
Chris elucidated some of my questions before I finished writing my email...
Claus wrote:
(*) actually, that was a bit
Christopher Brown wrote:
Christian,
Did you try the switch -fallow-overlapping-instances when compiling?
Yes, but it doesn't seem to make much difference.
Maybe a couple of more library files have not been translated with the
above flag.
On Monday 03 April 2006 14:19, David F. Place wrote:
Often when writing algorithms which involve set operations on small
enumerations, I start off using Data.Set. I soon find performance
requires rewriting that code to use bitwise operations. I miss the
nice interface of Data.Set and the
since I haven't factored out the constraint propagation into a
general module, the core of my code is a lot longer than the Curry version
(about 60 additional lines, though I'm sure one could reduce that;-). the
only negative point I can find about the Curry example is that it isn't
obvious
Jared Updike wrote:
Chris wrote:
You need more than 5 examples. The truly evil puzzles are rarer than that.
Go
get the set of minimal puzzles and see how far your logic takes you.
Chris elucidated some of my questions before I finished writing my email...
Claus wrote:
(*) actually,
Hello Christopher,
the trick is that there is another approach to generics, largely based
on the Strafunski. it's named scrap your boilerplate! (SYB) and it's
implementation is included in ghc. you can find 3 SYB papers and it
seems better to just learn and use this approach to generic
On Apr 3, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
wondered about the Ord instance. Wouldn't it be faster to compare
(word-) representations?
I thought about that some. Since the set representation is based
completely on the enumeration, it would be possible for the type
being
Hello
it seems that sudoku solver may be a good candidate for nofib suite /
language comparison shootout
--
Best regards,
Bulatmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On 4/3/06, David F. Place [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 3, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
wondered about the Ord instance. Wouldn't it be faster to compare
(word-) representations?
I thought about that some. Since the set representation is based
completely on the
Nils Anders Danielsson wrote:
A function like this has been suggested for the
standard libraries a couple of times before.
Someone suggested the name on, which I quite
like:
(*) `on` f = \x y - f x * f y
Thanks! I always wanted to be someone. :-)
Here's the link.
On Apr 3, 2006, at 5:38 PM, Jean-Philippe Bernardy wrote:
I don't think there is a requirement for the Ord class to be equal to
compare a b = compare (toAscList a) (toAscList b). I'd say it's safe
to simply compare the bits representation.
Hmm. OK.
Besides, I've integrated your module to
bulat.ziganshin:
Hello
it seems that sudoku solver may be a good candidate for nofib suite /
language comparison shootout
It would also be nice to see some example sudoku solvers posted
on an `Idioms' page on haskell.org:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Category:Idioms
someone could
Am Montag, 3. April 2006 18:52 schrieb Chris Kuklewicz:
Claus Reinke wrote:
It solves sudoku puzzles. (What pleasure do people get by doing
these in their heads?!?)
probably the same you get from writing programs?-) figuring out the
rules, not getting lost in complexity, making
Joost,
Thanks very much - this solved my problem!
Cheers
Chris.
On 3 Apr 2006, at 17:03, Joost Visser wrote:
Hi Chris,
Changes in the libraries of GHC have broken Strafunski
compatibility in the past. I have not upgraded to GHC 6.5 myself so
I'm not sure if this is the case again.
Hi Ralf,
I'm looking for a function like extT but with more general type:
(t a - s a) - (t b - s b) - (t a - s a)
Is there such a thing in the generics library?
Hi Frederik,
Not sure how you are exactly going to use such an operation ...
But here is its implementation anyhow.
Thanks
46 matches
Mail list logo
