Looks like my worry is pointless. :-
I was just afraid that Haskell may pick up another object monster. (And I'm
a C++/Java programmer)
Although I still miss a simple primitive language construct to do
'extensible record', it is definitely a nice work both theoretically and
practically to present
Although I still miss a simple primitive language construct to do
'extensible record',
If you look at the OOHaskell, and HList papers, you will see
the neatest way of defining an HList based extensible record
is:
record = label1 .=. value1
.*. label2 .=. value2
Have been playing with the idea of a list class like
the one I posted earlier... but now a bit streamlined.
I have implemented wc using this class and a nice buffer
list. The result is something 4 times slower than the
current language-shootout code, but is rather neater.
The restriction on
Of course when I say it's neater - I mean if the List class
were defined in the libraries, so only the short definition
of 'wc' given at the beginning of my last post would be required!
Keean.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am looking for a functional programming summer school in the next 12
months. I realise there was one August this year, does anyone know of
any others coming up?
Matt
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
I am working on automatic vectorisation of functional code (by
compiler). If there is anyone else interested in this, I would love to
hear from you.
If there is anyone else already working on this, or planning to in the
near future, I would hate to be replicating someone else's work -
Matthew Roberts wrote:
I am looking for a functional programming summer school in the next 12
months. I realise there was one August this year, does anyone know of
any others coming up?
July 4-8 2005 will be an international summer school on
generative and transformational techniques in
I am looking for a functional programming summer school in the next 12
months. I realise there was one August this year, does anyone know of
any others coming up?
We want to organize the next Advanced Functional Programming School in
the summer of 2006 (two years after the last). A call for
I'm having trouble using an existential type, becasue of what seem to be
limitations in how I can express the type. I want values in my
existential type to denote, for some monad, a monadic operation and a
way to run the monad. Except, I want it mix the operation with
operations in another
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:55:02 -0400
Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
data Foo = forall t. (MonadTrans t) = Foo
((Monad m, Monad (t m)) = t m a - m a)-- run
((Monad m, Monad (t m)) = t m Int) -- op
prog :: Foo - IO Int
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 10:19:14AM +0900, Koji Nakahara wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:55:02 -0400
Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
data Foo = forall t. (MonadTrans t) = Foo
((Monad m, Monad (t m)) = t m a - m a)-- run
((Monad m,
Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I want values in my existential type to denote, for some monad, a
monadic operation and a way to run the monad. Except, I want it mix
the operation with operations in another monad, so it use a monad
transformer.
I'm afraid, that phrase was a little misleading. It
12 matches
Mail list logo
