On 25 Dec 2005 12:24:38 +0100, Peter Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Moore writes:
It would be interesting to see standalone code for wcIOB
(where you're allowed to assume that any helpers you
need, like your block IO library, are available from the
standard library). This would
On Monday 26 December 2005 02:41, Donn Cave wrote:
I don't think it will be too much worse. I would not try to
combine the struct updates, in the both case -- it doesn't buy
you anything, and pulls you into duplication you don't want.
What about this
runDaytimeServer :: DaytimeServer - IO
Back to where this came from, my view is that this is an education
issue - tutorials tend to focus on lazy, functional techniques, and
not on efficiency.
But the material is available, so people *can* learn. It just needs
some effort (but possibly more than it should...)
Can anyone suggest
Quoth Pupeno [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| On Monday 26 December 2005 02:41, Donn Cave wrote:
| I don't think it will be too much worse. I would not try to
| combine the struct updates, in the both case -- it doesn't buy
| you anything, and pulls you into duplication you don't want.
| What about this
|
|
Paul Moore wrote:
On 25 Dec 2005 12:24:38 +0100, Peter Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Moore writes:
It would be interesting to see standalone code for wcIOB
(where you're allowed to assume that any helpers you
need, like your block IO library, are available from the
standard
mcqueenorama:
How is this different from the (un)pickle process that has been
discussed here recently? Recently I've seen the Binary discussions,
and the pickeling discussions, and I noticed they seemed to be talking
about the same process.
Yep, same thing.
-- Don
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 07:00:12AM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
I've just glanced at the code, and yes, it is a bit of a mess. I'll see
if I can tidy it up. Perhaps you could help me?
I've just made the parser more generic, which helped to reduce code
duplication. Maybe I will finally manage
On Dec 26, 2005 10:20 PM, Brian McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is this different from the (un)pickle process that has been
discussed here recently?
There is one important difference in my mind. Most of the pickling code
is concerned with turning haskell data into a binary stream that
