On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Tim Baumgartner
baumgartner@googlemail.com wrote:
I have not yet gained a good understanding of the continuation monad, but I
wonder if it could be used here. What would a clean solution look like?
Perhaps there are other things that need to be changed as
Is there any rationale for coexistence of
newtype Const a b = Const { getConst :: a }
from Control.Applicative and
newtype Constant a b = Constant { getConstant :: a }
from Data.Functor.Constant (transformers package)?
Denis Moskvin
___
Denis Moskvin writes:
Is there any rationale for coexistence of
newtype Const a b = Const { getConst :: a }
from Control.Applicative and
newtype Constant a b = Constant { getConstant :: a }
from Data.Functor.Constant (transformers package)?
It was an accident. I think it would make
Thanks a lot! Althaugh I have some understanding of the Haskell basics and
the most important monads, I feel that I have to see more well designed
code in order to become a good Haskeller. Can somebody make suggestions
what materials are best to work through in order to achieve this? Are there
Following the recent discussion on Haskell-Cafe, I've taken over maintainership
of SmallCheck.
This is to announce a new minor release, SmallCheck 0.5. It fixes build on GHC
7.2
and makes a few cosmetic changes.
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/smallcheck-0.5
In the future there will be
On 11-11-15 05:56 PM, Blaine wrote:
So this is hilarious. This whole time I thought 'warning' meant 'error'.
Under some conditions, having multiple versions does not hurt; under
some other conditions, it hurts. This is not an unquestionable error.
Though, I would recommend against it, unless
Hmm... I think I made a little confusion so I put my finding here:
http://haisgwu.info/posts/2011-11-20-euler-problem-14.html
I do got stack overflow thus need several compile opts to fix it.
Not sure if it is what you mean by You get overflow using 32-bit types
here.
-Haisheng
On Sat, Nov 19,
