2006/6/23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
G'day all.
hey,
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Recently Vo Minh Thu wondered if Haskell (or, I generalize, functional
programming) can be of much use for computer graphics programming.
As others have pointed out, it's Haskell (and its laziness)
Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But how does this change the fact that y still has 1 more element
than yq? yq is after all, not a circular list.
infinity+1 = infinity
Surely this is just a mathematical convention, not reality! :-)
Not even that. Infinity isn't a number, and it
Brian Hulley wrote:
Piotr Kalinowski wrote:
On 22/06/06, Brian Hulley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, why do people accept that infinity == infinity + 1 ?
Surely this expression is just ill-typed. infinity can't be a number.
This equation is just a shortcut, so I can't see how can it
Hi all,
A question for hot summer day: Text.ParserCombinators.ReadP.ReadP is
an instance of Monad. Could it be an instance of MonadFix too?
I'm not that sharp in Haskell to write it myself, but it seems I could
make use of such a beast. :) Anybody willing to share?
This will also present the
Dear,Yesterday, while discussing with Cale and SamB on I suddenly came up with the crazy idea of scoped data declarations. After some brief discussion to check the validity, I finally came to the conclusion that they should be feasible. In addition, I don't think that they would require a high
Paul Hudak wrote:
Actually Brian's intuition is right on target. One way to define an
infinite list is as the limit of an infinite chain of partial lists
(which, in domain theory, is essentially how all elements are defined).
as the answer to Brian Hulley conjecture criticized by myself:
Consider the following suggestions for the standard Haskell library
`List'.
import List (intersprerse, insertBy)
compose :: [a - a] - a - a -- just appropriate name
compose = foldr (.) id
insertBy2 :: (a - b) -
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
OK, I think that this subject matured enough to rest in peace...
I would have to agree with that, although...
Couldn't an infinite list just be regarded as the maximum element of
the (infinite) set of all finite lists?
Perhaps his intuition is right, but there are
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 09:38 -0400, Paul Hudak wrote:
. . .
But the limit of a chain IS the maximal element of the set of all
elements comprising the chain, since the LUB, in the case of a chain, is
unique, and thus we don't have to worry about choosing the least
element (i.e. it reduces
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
OK, I think
that this subject matured enough to rest in peace...
I would have to
agree with that, although...
Since the subject is not going to rest, why
not also jump in?
Well, each partial list is finite.
I think quite
a few
Bill Wood wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 09:38 -0400, Paul Hudak wrote:
But the limit of a chain IS the maximal element of the set of all
elements comprising the chain, since the LUB, in the case of a chain, is
unique, and thus we don't have to worry about choosing the least
element (i.e. it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, each partial list is finite.
I think quite
a few people would agree that a finite list is one ending in []. So 1:_|_
is a partial list, but not a finite one. 1:[] is a finite list.
1:_|_ is certainly finite. In what sense is it not?
That doesn't quite make
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1:_|_
is certainly finite. In what sense is it not?
I see that point. I have
been using finite as, by convention, equal to total and finite. And so
have others. As always with convention, one can argue. I won't, of course.
Sorry, see my
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 05:44:58PM +0100, I wrote:
It works because Haskell 'data' definitions yield both an initial fixed
point (with respect to strict functions) and a terminal fixed point (with
respect to arbitrary functions), and moreover these are usually the same.
The former is
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:57:48AM -0400, Paul Hudak wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, each partial list is finite.
I think quite
a few people would agree that a finite list is one ending in []. So 1:_|_
is a partial list, but not a finite one. 1:[] is a finite list.
1:_|_ is
Stepan,
And what is length _|_ ?
_|_
Regards,
Stefan
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Stepan Golosunov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:57:48AM -0400, Paul Hudak wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think quite
a few people would agree that a finite list is one ending in []. So 1:_|_
is a partial list, but not a finite one. 1:[] is a finite list.
1:_|_ is certainly finite. In
Hi.
I want to write a haskellquickfind app to get a list of files using
human readable hash values (eg the first character of
directory/filenames)
Eg hquickfind vtl
should print /var/tmp/local
My implementation should look like this:
Every folder/file is token and I want to run a parser. to
On 6/10/06, Robert Dockins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 10 June 2006 04:35 pm, Clifford Beshers wrote:
The Wikipedia article on lambda abstractions
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_abstraction) has a statement that
does not resonate with me:
A lambda abstraction is to a
Gracjan:To declare ReadP an instance of MonadFix; you'll first have to make the P monad into a MonadFix instance. That can be done using existing techniques in the literature.ReadP is essentially the continuation monad transformer wrapped around P. It's well known in the value-recursion literature
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 03:30:18PM -0400, Paul Hudak wrote:
Stepan Golosunov wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:57:48AM -0400, Paul Hudak wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think quite
a few people would agree that a finite list is one ending in []. So 1:_|_
is a partial list, but not a
I have been work my way through Haskell The Craft of Functional
Programming, all was fine until IO (chapter 18). That is causing me
bafflement.
I am trying to write a totally trivial program that reads a series of
integers from the console until it gets a zero, then returns the series
of
On 6/23/06, Geoffrey King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been work my way through Haskell The Craft of Functional
Programming, all was fine until IO (chapter 18). That is causing me
bafflement.
I am trying to write a totally trivial program that reads a series of
integers from the console
23 matches
Mail list logo
