Pete Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One snag is that I doubt you could ring up an agency and ask for half a dozen
Haskell programmers. You could probably get people who did a bit of
functional programming as part of a computer science degree, but that may not
be enough for your needs.
On 2006-03-28 at 08:02+0200 Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
I wonder if it would be possible to remove the space-leak by running both
branches concurrently, and scheduling threads in a way that would
minimise the space-leak. I proposed this before
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:50:02 +0100
Jon Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are some observations I'd like to make, and a
proposal. Since the proposal relates (in a small way) to
concurrency and is, I think worthwhile, I've cc'd this
message to haskell-prime.
1) choosing the optimal
Robin Green wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:50:02 +0100
Jon Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
1) choosing the optimal reduction strategy is undecidable
2) we shouldn't (in general) attempt to do undecidable
things automatically
[snip]
[snip]
I suggest that a Haskell program should be
Brian Hulley wrote:
Robin Green wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:50:02 +0100
Jon Fairbairn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
1) choosing the optimal reduction strategy is undecidable
2) we shouldn't (in general) attempt to do undecidable
things automatically
[snip]
[snip]
I suggest that a
On 2006-03-27, Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--===0906829955==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz
Content-Disposition: inline
--3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz
Content-Type: text/plain;
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Brian Hulley wrote:
This sounds good. The only thing I'm wondering is what do we actually gain by
using Haskell in the first place instead of just a strict language? It seems
that Haskell's lazyness gives a succinct but too inefficient program which
then needs extra code
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 03:23:04PM +0100, Robin Green wrote:
I suggest that a Haskell program should be treated as an executable
specification. In some cases the compiler can't optimise the program
well enough, so we (by which I mean, ordinary programmers, not compiler
geeks) should be able to
Hi,
Newbie question. Given the inferred type for square,
the
inferred types for quad1, quad2 and quad3 are what I
would
expect. Is there a straightforward explanation (i.e.
one
that a newbie would understand) as to why the inferred
type
for quad4 is less general?
Regards,
dl
-- GHC
I think this is the monomorphism restriction, you can see more details
on the web page:
http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/MonomorphismRestriction
On 3/30/06, David Laffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Newbie question. Given the inferred type for square,
the
inferred types for quad1, quad2 and
10 matches
Mail list logo
