Happy new year from Japan.
A young talented guy, @fumieval, has released Monaris, a Tetoris clone based
on OpenGL. You can install it:
% cabal install Monaris
To my surprise, this game is implemented with free Monad. ;-)
Regards,
--Kazu
___
Le Tue, 01 Jan 2013 14:24:04 -0900,
Christopher Howard christopher.how...@frigidcode.com a écrit :
I'm working through a video lecture describing how to prove programs
correct, by first translating the program into a control flow
representation and then using propositional logic. In the
On Jan 2, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Bob Hutchison hutch-li...@recursive.ca wrote:
On 2013-01-01, at 3:47 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Well, probably one of the reasons is that I've learned Eiffel later than
Haskell.
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly is a
On Jan 2, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Никитин Лев leon.v.niki...@pravmail.ru wrote:
I said theoratical, but not mathematical or a scientific theory.
Than what kind of theory did you mean?
image1.gif Meyer have built a quite coherent construction in comparison
with other OOP langs.
More than
On Jan 2, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
[Context destroyed by top posting.]
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly is a useful
approach, but it doesn't seem to be a theory, not until we can actually
prove
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:48:07 +0400
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
On Jan 2, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly is a useful
approach, but it doesn't seem to be a theory, not until
Hi list,
I am a bit puzzled by the behaviour exemplified by this code:
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
one :: (forall a. a - a) - b - b
one f = f
two = let f = flip one in f 'x' id
three = (flip one :: b - (forall a. a - a) - b) 'x' id
four = flip one 'x' id
Try to guess
At Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:32:53 +0100,
Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
Hi list,
I am a bit puzzled by the behaviour exemplified by this code:
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
one :: (forall a. a - a) - b - b
one f = f
two = let f = flip one in f 'x' id
three = (flip one :: b
Well, we can say "concepts" in place of "theory". And I'm comparing Eiffel with other OOP lang, not with some langs based on a solid math theory (lambda calcules for FP langs, for example). ok? DbC is not the same as "assert macros". First, it has a lang semantic. There is an interesting
Opps... I forgot about Eiffel agents! PS. After participationing in this discussion I'm tempting to reread Meyer's book after 10 years interval, to have a detailed look at the eiffel from the FP position. When I read this book first I know nothing about FP.
* Francesco Mazzoli f...@mazzo.li [2013-01-02 13:04:36+0100]
At Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:32:53 +0100,
Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
Hi list,
I am a bit puzzled by the behaviour exemplified by this code:
{-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-}
one :: (forall a. a - a) - b - b
one f =
On 2013-01-02, at 4:41 AM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
On Jan 2, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Bob Hutchison hutch-li...@recursive.ca wrote:
On 2013-01-01, at 3:47 PM, MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
Well, probably one of the reasons is that I've learned Eiffel later than
Haskell.
At Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:49:51 +0200,
Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
I don't see how this is relevant.
Well, moving `flip one' in a let solves the problem, and The fact that let-bound
variables are treated differently probably has a play here. I originally
thought that this was because the quantifications
On 2013-01-02, at 7:56 AM, Bob Hutchison hutch-li...@recursive.ca wrote:
You should read OOSC2. You'll find that this is completely consistent with
it. Don't forget that the 'C' in OOSC2 is 'contraction'.
'Construction' of course… the automated spell checker is not my friend :-(
Hi,
First, I see (posts on this mailing list) that OO ideas are well known
in functional community :)
So my questions for you all are:
* Is it really worthwhile for me to learn OO-programming?
Learn or not to learn? I would say: yes! There is whole new universe
to discover: UML,
On 2013-01-02, at 1:52 AM, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
[Context destroyed by top posting.]
MigMit miguelim...@yandex.ru wrote:
But really, Design by Contract — a theory? It certainly is a useful
approach, but it doesn't seem to be a theory, not until we can actually
prove something
Your example doesn't work for the same reason the following doesn't work:
id runST (some st code)
It requires the inferencer to instantiate certain variables of id's type to
polymorphic types based on runST (or flip's based on one), and then use
that information to check some st code (id in
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Bernhard Urban lew...@gmail.com wrote:
The main issue: The GHC runtime relies on glibc
I have to assume this is not meant literally, because ghc works on OS X and
*BSD.
Right. I was
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Dan Doel dan.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Note that even left-to-right behavior covers all cases, as you might have:
f x y
such that y requires x to be checked polymorphically in the same way.
There are algorithms that can get this right in general, but it's a
At Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:20:46 -0500,
Dan Doel wrote:
Your example doesn't work for the same reason the following doesn't work:
id runST (some st code)
It requires the inferencer to instantiate certain variables of id's type to
polymorphic types based on runST (or flip's based on one),
Hello,
rather than native GHC run on top of Android, I would recommend to have
a look at GHC HEAD and attempt to cross-compile to Android. On ghc-cvs@
mailing list I've seen some work done for cross-compiling to
QNX/BlackBerry OS 10 so I think Androind should be also doable with some
Christopher, there's an introduction to proof for functional programs at
http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/sjt/Pubs/ProofChapter.pdf
I hope that you find it useful.
Kind regards
Simon
On 1 Jan 2013, at 23:24, Christopher Howard christopher.how...@frigidcode.com
wrote:
1. Does this
If you want to know the inner workings, you probably need to read the
OutsideIn(X) paper.*
I'm not that familiar with the algorithm. But what happens is something
like this When GHC goes to infer the type of 'f x' where it knows that
f's argument is expected to be polymorphic, this triggers a
At Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:35:24 -0500,
Dan Doel wrote:
If you want to know the inner workings, you probably need to read the
OutsideIn(X) paper.*
I'm not that familiar with the algorithm. But what happens is something
like this When GHC goes to infer the type of 'f x' where it knows that
On Jan 2, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Никитин Лев leon.v.niki...@pravmail.ru wrote:
Well, we can say concepts in place of theory. And I'm comparing Eiffel
with other OOP lang, not with some langs based on a solid math theory (lambda
calcules for FP langs, for example). ok?
I agree that there are
2) prepost conditions and class invariants have defined behaviour in cases
of inheritance, even/especially multiple inheritance. They are combined
non-trivially in subclasses. Without this I don't think you have DbC.
Yes, I forgot about that. Thanks.
Feel free to enlighten me about these
On 1/2/13 4:29 PM, MigMit wrote:
BTW. Why you think that Eiffel type system is unsafe?
Well, if I remember correctly, if you call some method of a certain object, and
this call compiles, you can't be certain that this object actually has this
method. Could be that this object belongs to
On Jan 3, 2013, at 2:09 AM, Gershom Bazerman gersh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/2/13 4:29 PM, MigMit wrote:
BTW. Why you think that Eiffel type system is unsafe?
Well, if I remember correctly, if you call some method of a certain object,
and this call compiles, you can't be certain that this
I'm happy to announce v2.9 release of the Haskell SBV library:
http://leventerkok.github.com/sbv/
SBV (SMT Based Verification) is a library that allows Haskell programs to
take advantage of modern SMT solvers, by providing a symbolic simulation
engine that can invoke 3rd party SMT solvers
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Simon Thompson s.j.thomp...@kent.ac.uk wrote:
Christopher, there's an introduction to proof for functional programs at
http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/sjt/Pubs/ProofChapter.pdf
Simon, is it possible to get the list of the bibliographic references
used
Hello,
I'm working on a general text-processing library [1] and one of my
quickcheck tests is designed to make sure that my library doesn't throw
exceptions (it returns an Either type on failure). However, there are some
inputs that cause me to pass bogus values to the 'chr' function (such
as
31 matches
Mail list logo
