Excerpts from Johan Tibell's message of Thu Aug 13 21:41:51 +0300 2009:
My best advice would be to form an special interest group (SIG) and
iron out the details. This doesn't have to be anything terribly
formal. Just a bunch of people who are interested in improving things.
The SIG could
or
event :: a - Signal Bool - (a - a) - SignalMonad (Signal a)
event v0 b f = accumIf v0 f = return b
?
That's not a good idea, because it doesn't take time into consideration,
so you'd jump a huge amount in every frame. What I had in mind is
something like this:
ifte :: Signal Bool -
so you'd jump a huge amount in every frame. What I had in
can you explain, please ? I can't feel it when I play.
something like this:
ifte :: Signal Bool - Signal a - Signal a -
Signal a
ifte sc st sf = (\c t f - if c then t else f) $
sc * st * sf
And then:
playerX - integral
can you explain, please ? I can't feel it when I play.
Well, the paddle moves very fast that way, and its speed depends on the
refresh rate. While the refresh rate is set in this program, it's not a
good idea to depend on it in any way. Transfer functions provide access
to the frame time, so you
Hello,
I have a question regarding type family signatures. Consider the
following type family:
type family Fam a :: *
Then I define a GADT that takes such a value and wraps it:
data GADT :: * - * where
GADT :: a - Fam a - GADT (Fam a)
and an accompanying unwrapper:
unwrap ::
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Thomas van Noorttho...@cs.ru.nl wrote:
Hello,
I have a question regarding type family signatures. Consider the following
type family:
type family Fam a :: *
Then I define a GADT that takes such a value and wraps it:
data GADT :: * - * where
GADT ::
Dear Haskellers,
Just a quick reminder that we will be having a Hack Day in Edinburgh
on Sunday 30 August (ICFP venue). That's in two weeks!
For the interested, we will also be meeting up the day before 09:30
Saturday 29 August just outside the RCPE (ie. the ICFP venue again).
We'll have a
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Jeremy Shaw wrote:
This perhaps?
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/checkers
It seems dangerous to me to supply orphan instances in a package which is
not obviously related to QuickCheck. I propose to get approval from the
QuickCheck authors, that the instances can be
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Heinrich Apfelmus wrote:
Russell O'Connor wrote:
Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
I kind of agree with the DDC authors here; in Haskell as soon as a
function has a side effect, and you want to pass that function to a
pure higher order function, you're stuck, you need to pick
to the frame time, so you can adjust the speed to be
independent of it.
ok, thanks
integralClamped v0 vmin vmax s = transfer v0 accum s
where accum dt v v0 = max vmin $ min vmax $
v0+v*realToFrac dt
playerX - integralClamped playerX0 (-fieldW)
(fieldW-playerW)
(ifte
But presumably he can use a data family instead of a type family to
restore injectivity, at the cost of adding an extra wrapped bottom value
and one more layer of value constructor?
David Menendez wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Thomas van Noorttho...@cs.ru.nl wrote:
Hello,
I have
I finally uploaded the profiling tools to Hackage. The package names are
hp2any-{core,graph,manager}. The first two should be possible to install
right away, while the manager needs Gtk2Hs. A bit more on the project
and this update at http://just-bottom.blogspot.com.
Do you have an
Hmmm, my point (perhaps I wasn't clear), is that different effects
have different commutability properties. In the case of a file system,
you can commute two sequential reads from two different files. This
has no effect on the result of the computation, assuming no
interference from
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Dan Westonweston...@imageworks.com wrote:
But presumably he can use a data family instead of a type family to restore
injectivity, at the cost of adding an extra wrapped bottom value and one
more layer of value constructor?
Actually, you don't even necessarily
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:41 PM, John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net wrote:
Hmmm, my point (perhaps I wasn't clear), is that different effects have
different commutability properties. In the case of a file system, you can
commute two sequential reads from two different files. This has no effect
I think version is control is really just a subset of a larger effect
theory. E.g. I've been experimenting with a parallel undo/redo system
in C#, where some actions can commute and be undone separately, and
for detecting this, the actions need to explicitly expose what they
will change; so this
My intuition says the proper formalism is that undo is left adjoint to redo.
They together form a monad in the category of redoable actions. return
lifts doable actions to undoable ones by attaching an empty undo stack.
join lowers (reflects) a first-class undoable action out of the undo
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:41 PM, John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net wrote:
Hmmm, my point (perhaps I wasn't clear), is that different effects have
different commutability properties. In the case of a file system, you can
commute two sequential reads from two different files.
But you can't! I
On Aug 14, 2009, at 8:21 PM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
But you can't! I can easily envisage a scenario where there's a link
between two pieces of data in two different files, where it's okay
if the data in file A is newer (in a versioning sense, not a
timestamp sense) than the corresponding
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 3:55 AM, John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net wrote:
On Aug 14, 2009, at 8:21 PM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
But you can't! I can easily envisage a scenario where there's a link
between two pieces of data in two different files, where it's okay if the
data in file A is
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 3:55 AM, John A. De Goes j...@n-brain.net wrote:
If you don't like the file system, consider mutable memory. An effect
system will tell me I can safely update two pieces of non-overlapping,
contiguous memory concurrently, even in different threads if the complexity
so
21 matches
Mail list logo
