Hi Oleg and others,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jean-Marie Gaillourdet wrote:
class T root pos sel | pos - root, root - sel where
f :: pos - sel - Bool
instance T root (Any root) sel
If that is correct, I don't understand why this instance should be to
general, as every instantiation of
I support both reducing the prelude to just a few commonly used combinators, and
requiring an explicit import Prelude. In response to a couple of Stefan's points:
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
6. Dependency
Because every module imports the Prelude every module that the Prelude
depends on, mutually
Daniel,
I am still trying to figure out the order of function applications in the
parser returning list of objects (I attached again the code to the end of
this message for convenience).
You wrote:
(*) associates to the right, hence
p * (p * (p * (... * (p * succeed [])...)))
I don't understand
On blessed Wed Mar 28 05:52:03 EDT 2007 Simon Marlow wrote:
I support both reducing the prelude to just a few commonly used combinators,
and
requiring an explicit import Prelude. (...)
So YOU are the GOD's angle with the sword!
And thus we leave the orchard for a battlefield. I really
Am Mittwoch, 28. März 2007 11:57 schrieb Dmitri O.Kondratiev:
Daniel,
I am still trying to figure out the order of function applications in the
parser returning list of objects (I attached again the code to the end of
this message for convenience).
You wrote:
(*) associates to the right,
It's done. The mailinglist is called web-devel hosted on haskell.org and
can be fond by haskell.org - mailinglists - a comprehensive list of ..
To subscribe goto
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/web-devel
If you want to help administrating the list drop me a mail.
Marc
On 28/03/07, Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I support both reducing the prelude to just a few commonly used combinators, and
requiring an explicit import Prelude.
Just to clear things up: would you need to do an import Prelude to get
at these few commonly used combinators, or would
| I believe you are seeing a speed decrease, because GHC is not inlining
| functions as much when you split them into modules. If you add
| explicit inline statements, I think you should be able to get back to
| your original timings.
Generally speaking GHC will inline *across* modules just as
Hi
Regarding type variable naming, a few of my more hardware minded
friends I've asked to try Haskell often tease me about the opaque type
variable names in the Prelude--it seems greater consideration of type
variable names in the Prelude might behoove new users.
I think that single letter
On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
Robert Dockins wrote:
After taking a look at the Haddock docs, I was impressed by the
amount of
repetition in the APIs. Not ony does Data.CompactString duplicate
the
whole
Data.ByteString interface (~100 functions, adding some more for
Hi,
I often run into the following issue: I want to write a list of lengthy
items like this
mylist = [
quite_lengthy_list_item_number_one,
quite_lengthy_list_item_number_two,
quite_lengthy_list_item_number_three
]
With the current layout rules this is a parse error (at the closing
Robert Dockins wrote:
Some sort of in-langauge or extra-language support for mechanicly
producing
the source files for the full API from the optimized core API
would be
quite welcome.
Have you considered using DrIFT? IIRC it is more portable and easier to use
than TH.
Handling export
mgsloan wrote:
On 3/24/07, Vivian McPhail [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Sven, but...
What I want to push is a 'mathematically sound' numeric prelude. A
proper
numerical prelude should have bona fide mathematical obects like groups,
rings, and fields underlying common numerical
mylist =
[ foo, bar, baz,
qux, quux, foo,
bar, baz, qux ]
Good direction.
Perhaps you can also figure out how to replace the disturbing $ operator?
-Andrzej
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On Wednesday 28 March 2007 17:08, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
Robert Dockins wrote:
Some sort of in-langauge or extra-language support for mechanicly
producing
the source files for the full API from the optimized core API
would be
quite welcome.
Have you considered using DrIFT? IIRC
Perhaps you can also figure out how to replace the disturbing $ operator?
Why is it disturbing?
It is not that I am short on dollar or Eurofobic;-)
It introduces sort of daub aesthetics to the code. Also for someone that puts
strong
emphases on notation signs should have some semiotic
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 10:21:08PM +0200, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
Hi,
I often run into the following issue: I want to write a list of lengthy
items like this
mylist = [
quite_lengthy_list_item_number_one,
quite_lengthy_list_item_number_two,
quite_lengthy_list_item_number_three
]
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 20:44 +0200, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
But... you have the type of all functions nailed down in classes. Thus, even
if a change in the API means a lot of tedious work adapting the concrete
implementations, at least the compiler helps you to check that the
implementations
Andrzej Jaworski wrote:
Good direction.
Perhaps you can also figure out how to replace the disturbing $ operator?
Something out of Unicode?
≬⊳⌁⋆☕⚡‣‸‡⁏•△▴◆◇◊◬◢◮♘♣♲♪◖▻▿轢
Greg Buchholz
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
David House wrote:
I see this a lot. My personal preference is:
mylist =
[ foo, bar, baz,
qux, quux, foo,
bar, baz, qux ]
Or,
mylist = [foo, bar , baz,
qux, quux, foo,
bar, baz , qux]
___
Haskell-Cafe
class T root pos sel | pos - root, root - sel where
f :: pos - sel - Bool
instance T root (Any root) sel
But the same applies to the second functional dependency and the type
variable sel. Every instantiation of root determines the instantiation
of sel. And that forbids instance T Int
I don't think that
aName =
[ x
, y
, z
]
can be beat for adaptability (i.e. adding/removing/reorganizing
results or _especially_ renaming the declaration). Doesn't do so hot
regarding vertical space though...
On 3/28/07, Greg Buchholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David House wrote:
I see
A wee bit off topic... but bear with me.
Oleg points out a distinction between declaring a class with
functional dependencies and implementing a class with functional
dependencies. Judging from my experience, it might behoove those
wrestling with type classes and FDs to emphasize that the class
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...] The above two instances show there
exists a model of T where the functional dependency is
violated. That's why both GHC 6.4 and Hugs reject the instance. Again,
it is a mystery why GHC 6.6 accepts it.
Actually, GHC 6.6 does reject cases like the one discussed in this
Greetings friends!
I'm pleased to announce binary 0.3!
The 'binary' package provides efficient serialization of Haskell values
to and from lazy ByteStrings. ByteStrings constructed this way may then
be written to disk, written to the network, or further processed (e.g.
stored in memory
25 matches
Mail list logo
