Alexander Danilov alexander.a.danilov at gmail.com writes:
03.03.2011 16:05, Hauschild, Klaus (EXT) пишет:
Hi Haskellers,
whats your Haskell IDE of choise? Currently I use leksah. Is the
EclipseFP Plugin for Eclipse a real alternative?
Thanks
Klaus
Emacs, look at haskell wiki
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Richard O'Keefe o...@cs.otago.ac.nz wrote:
On 4/03/2011, at 5:49 PM, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
I meant: there is no reasonable way of ordering tuples, let alone enum
them.
There are several reasonable ways to order tuples.
That does not mean we can't define
On 4 March 2011 19:16, Gracjan Polak gracjanpo...@gmail.com wrote:
Alexander Danilov alexander.a.danilov at gmail.com writes:
03.03.2011 16:05, Hauschild, Klaus (EXT) пишет:
Hi Haskellers,
whats your Haskell IDE of choise? Currently I use leksah. Is the
EclipseFP Plugin for Eclipse a
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljenovic at gmail.com writes:
Sounds similar to what haskell-indent does, except that it uses 2
spaces rather than 4, backspace does the chars less, and TAB also has
a version (albeit not as nice as the one in haskell-indentation) of
the tab-cycle.
I rejected
Hi,
I'd like to use http-enumerator for things that I've been using perl/Lwp
for. I tried looking but was not able to find good documentation for it.
Could someone please point me to simple examples?
Like posting a form, dealing with cookies etc.
Regards,
Kashyap
Haskell XML Toolbox 9.1
I would like to announce an update hxt-9.1 of the Haskell XML Toolbox.
Main changes compared to hxt-9.0 are
* space optimization of DOM tree for better performance for lager XML
documents
* optimization of space used during parsing in native XML and HTML parsers
* a
James Andrew Cook mo...@deepbondi.net writes:
What an interesting coincidence, that makes at least three of
us. Apparently it's an idea whose time has come.
Mine is also an incomplete low-level binding but is currently under
semi-active development and I aim to make it cover the entire
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Eric Mertens wrote:
(but I've had my head in Agda lately)
Indeed, coming across this problem tempted me
to abandon the real world and take refuge in Agda.
http://hpaste.org/44469/software_stack_puzzle
Wow, so simple, and no higher-rank types! This is the
best solution
Yves Parès wrote:
Okay thanks I got the difference between both.
The 'exists' syntax seems very useful. Is it planned to be added to GHC in a
near future?
Probably not. But once GADTs become more prominent, there might be
pressure to add first-class existential types to the language.
Note
On Mar 4, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
Hi,
This is fairly extensive indeed! I got nowhere near this, but also
took
a somewhat different angle, especially by using StorableArrays for
passing arrays around (I used HDF5 in conjunction with LaPack). I
also
experienced with going a
On Mar 4, 2011 2:49 AM, Karthick Gururaj karthick.guru...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ord has to be compatible with Eq, and none of these are.
Hmm.. not true. Can you explain what do you mean by compatibility?
Compatibility would mean that x == y if and only if compare x y == EQ. This
is not a
On 4 March 2011 09:47, Karthick Gururaj karthick.guru...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not able to still appreciate the choice of the default ordering order,
I don't know if this will help you appreciate the default or not, but just
to say this default is concordant with the auto-derived Ord instances.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 17:37, Chris Smith cdsm...@gmail.com wrote:
The most common use of Ord in real code, to be honest, is to use the value
in some data structure like Data.Set.Set or Data.Map.Map, which requires Ord
instances. For this purpose, any Ord instance that is compatible with Eq
There's also Martin Erwig's Parametric Fortran - which looks largely
similar but hides some of the parametric types with existentials.
Check the papers on his website, epscially the PADL one:
http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~erwig/papers/abstracts.html
Sorry, I didn't mean to answer you in particular. I meant to say that for
tuples you could (I think) have an enumeration over them without requiring
any component be bounded.
An example of type (Integer, Integer) you would have:
[(0,0) ..] = [(0,0) (0,1) (1,0) (0,2) (1,1) (2,0) ... ]
where the
Hi everybody,
Following up on my last message, the date and venue for the sixth Darcs
Hacking sprint has been confirmed.
Get out your berets everybody, because we're going to Paris!
Here are three things to know
1. Everybody is welcome to join us. We'd love to have you, whatever
your
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 07:01, wren ng thornton w...@freegeek.org wrote:
where the annotation of MergeAnn is merged with the previous
annotation up the tree (via mappend), thus allowing for
annotations to be inherited and modified incrementally based
on the Monoid instance; whereas the NewAnn
Have you submitted a bug report to GHC of why it can't work with the current
integer-gmp binding? I know that GHC's collector is collecting MPFR's
temporary data, but maybe it'd be good to get a discussion going on what can
be done to stop it from doing this even in the context of the existing
According to Duncan Coutts (whom I asked about this issue in #ghc), the
solution here is to use the new foreign import prim machinery to talk to
MPFR. This prevents GC from occurring during the MPFR calls and will make
everything work nicely without reimplementing GMP.
Dan
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at
Hello!
I was wondering if it was possible to convert a function (which may
also call functions) to a plain list of operators on parameters.
Example:
foo a b = a + b
bar a b = a * b
baw a b c = bar (foo a b) c
baw' a b c = (a + b) * c
Any way to get `baw'' from `baw'? Preferrably as a String.
Hello all,
Just a small announcement.
funsat has been bumped to 0.6.2. New in 0.6.2: works with ghc-6.12 and
fixed some space leaks.
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/funsat
bitset has been bumped to 1.1. New in 1.1: can easily convert between
the BitSet representation and the underlying
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Markus Läll markus.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Would this also have an uncomputable order type? At least for comparing
tuples you'd just:
You can tell if an enumeration will have an uncomputable order type by
whether or not your enumeration has to count to infinity
I'd be more than willing to tackle flipping things over to use foreign
prims, so that I have something I can build on top without requiring the
contortions to get a ghc build with integer-simple.
Dan has a cabal buildable library with foreign prims to use as a model.
Is the google code
Make your own expression type and make it an instance of the Num typeclass.
Then you can build your expression using the usual operators and then use
show to convert to a string.
For example:
https://github.com/jvranish/grhug/blob/master/SymbolicDifferentiation/SymbolicDifferentiation.hs
It
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:14 PM, wren ng thornton w...@freegeek.org wrote:
On 3/3/11 2:58 AM, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 12:29:44PM +0530, Karthick Gururaj wrote:
Thanks - is this the same unit that accompanies IO in IO () ? In
any case, my question is answered
On Friday 04 March 2011 17:45:13, Markus Läll wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to answer you in particular. I meant to say that
for tuples you could (I think) have an enumeration over them without
requiring any component be bounded.
Yes, you can (at least mathematically, it may be different if you
On Friday 04 March 2011 22:33:20, Alexander Solla wrote:
Unfortunately, Haskell's tuples aren't quite products.[1]
I'm not seeing this either. (A,B) is certainly the Cartesian product of
A and B.
Not quite in Haskell, there
(A,B) = A×B \union {_|_}
_|_ and (_|_,b) are distinguishable.
Hi Dan,
On Friday 04 Mar 2011 21:59:12 Daniel Peebles wrote:
I'm adding Ed to the conversation as he's very interested in this topic,
too.
I do apologise - I was meant to post the previous email back to haskell-cafe
but by mistake it went only to you. I hope you do not mind that I am taking
On Friday 04 Mar 2011 21:06:45 Edward Kmett wrote:
I'd be more than willing to tackle flipping things over to use foreign
prims, so that I have something I can build on top without requiring the
contortions to get a ghc build with integer-simple.
Dan has a cabal buildable library with
On 4 March 2011 22:10, Job Vranish job.vran...@gmail.com wrote:
Make your own expression type and make it an instance of the Num typeclass.
This is also the approach I took in repr:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/repr
For example:
$ cabal install repr
$ ghci
import Text.Repr
let r = 1.5
Hello,
For testing purposes, I am trying to make an overlay to IO which carries a
phantom type to ensure a context.
I define contexts using empty type classes :
class CtxFoo c
class CtxBar c
The overlay :
newtype MyIO c a = MyIO (IO a)
Then I define some methods that run only a specific
On 5 March 2011 10:45, Yves Parès limestr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
For testing purposes, I am trying to make an overlay to IO which carries a
phantom type to ensure a context.
I define contexts using empty type classes :
class CtxFoo c
class CtxBar c
The overlay :
newtype MyIO c a =
But I don't have an explicit type to put.
I cound do:
data CtxFooInst
instance CtxFoo CtxFooInst
and declare runFoo as this:
runFoo :: MyIO CtxFooInst a - IO a
But I loose the ability to make functions that can run several contexts.
2011/3/5 Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com
From: Evgeny Grablyk evgeny.grab...@gmail.com
Hello!
I was wondering if it was possible to convert a function (which may
also call functions) to a plain list of operators on parameters.
Example:
If your operators are only things in Num (or maybe some other
typeclasses), the
Okay, I found something which I'm sure already exists somewhere:
{-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies, TypeOperators, EmptyDataDecls #-}
data True
type family a `Or` b :: *
type instance True `Or` a = True
type instance a `Or` True = True
type family Ctx ref impl :: *
data Foo
data Bar
type instance Ctx
35 matches
Mail list logo
