On Wed 2008-09-10 09:05, David Roundy wrote:
2008/9/9 Jed Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue 2008-09-09 12:30, Bruce Eckel wrote:
So this is the kind of problem I keep running into. There will seem to be
consensus that you can do everything with isolated processes message
passing
On Tue 2008-09-09 12:30, Bruce Eckel wrote:
So this is the kind of problem I keep running into. There will seem to be
consensus that you can do everything with isolated processes message passing
(and note here that I include Actors in this scenario even if their mechanism
is more complex). And
On Wed 2008-08-27 16:21, Jules Bean wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello haskell-cafe,
solving one more task that uses English dictionary, i've thought: why we
don't yet have pure hashtable library? There is imperative hashtables,
pretty complex as they need to rebuild entire table as it
On Sun 2008-08-24 11:03, Thomas M. DuBuisson wrote:
Yay, the multicore version pays off when the workload is non-trivial.
CPU utilization is still rather low for the -N2 case (70%). I think the
Haskell threads have an affinity for certain OS threads (and thus a
CPU). Perhaps it results in a
On Wed 2008-08-13 16:58, Patrick Perry wrote:
variant :: Int - Gen a - Gen a
variant v (Gen m) = Gen (\n r - m n (rands r !! v'))
where
v' = abs (v+1) `mod` 1
rands r0 = r1 : rands r2 where (r1, r2) = split r0
This sort of defeats the purpose of variant since it is now a nearly
On Thu 2008-05-29 19:19, Tom Harper wrote:
Why not just read it into a lazy ByteString? Are you looking to use an
array with elements of a different type? You could then convert it to a
strict ByteString.
Because I'm writing the Unicode-friendly ByteString =p
Uh, ByteString is
On Thu 2008-05-29 18:45, Chad Scherrer wrote:
Jed Brown jed at 59A2.org writes:
Uh, ByteString is Unicode-agnostic. ByteString.Char8 is not. So why not
do IO
with lazy ByteString and parse into your own representation (which might
look a
lot like StorableVector)?
One problem you
On Tue 2008-05-13 20:46, Ketil Malde wrote:
Aaron Denney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess it depends a lot on what you grew up with. The names
(little/big endian) are incredibly apt.
The only argument I can come up with, is that big endian seems to make
more sense for 'od':
% echo
On Wed 2008-03-26 14:22, Henning Thielemann wrote:
A light-weight unboxed array variant is:
http://code.haskell.org/~sjanssen/storablevector/
There is also CArray which offers an immutable interface for any Storable.
http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/carray
You can
On Wed 2008-03-26 19:50, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello Jed,
Wednesday, March 26, 2008, 7:02:28 PM, you wrote:
StorableArray. Unfortunately there is a performance hit to using Storable
versus the built in unboxed types.
are you sure? it was in ghc 6.4, now afair they should be the
On 17 Mar 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello David,
Monday, March 17, 2008, 7:59:09 PM, you wrote:
foreign import ccall unsafe math.h log10
c_log10 :: CDouble - CDouble
log10 :: Double - Double
log10 x = realToFrac (c_log10 (realToFrac x))
It's a bit sloppier, but shouldn't cause any
On 12 Mar 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking for interesting project to work on during Google Summer of
Code. So I found [1]A data parallel physics engine ticket and got
excited about it. I'd like to know interested mentors and community
opinion about the complexity of such project.
On 15 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Jed Brown wrote:
Hopefully these are mature enough to be generally useful. I would
appreciate any comments regarding the interface. The FFTW API is not
particularly nice for building a pure interface on.
because FFTW stores
On 15 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Jed Brown wrote:
On 15 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Jed Brown wrote:
Hopefully these are mature enough to be generally useful. I would
appreciate any comments regarding the interface
Hopefully these are mature enough to be generally useful. I would
appreciate any comments regarding the interface. The FFTW API is not
particularly nice for building a pure interface on. Some of the
transforms could be made slightly faster at the expense of a much
nastier interface, but unless
On 8 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hallo!
Let's suppose I have a list [a,b,c,d,c,d]. I'd like to write
a function that returns a new list without duplicates (in
the example [a,b,c,d]). How can I do that? What is the most
general way? I'd like to use the same function for a list of
On 26 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem you solved can be solved much more elegantly:
pms : [a] - Int - [[a]]
pms xs n = foldM combine [] (replicate n xs) where
combine rest as = liftM (:rest) as
or, for the unreadable version:
pms xs n = foldM (map . flip (:)) [] $ replicate
On 13 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I define the follwoing functions:
car (x:_) = x
car [] = []
This won't typecheck. It helps to add a type signature
car :: [a] - a
The first element of an empty list is undefined, so you can do what
Prelude.head does and write:
car [] =
On 17 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ooo
The constructor of a newtype must have exactly one field but `R' has
two In the newtype declaration for `Rectangle'
It doesn't like
newtype Rectangle = R Int Int
You want
data Rectangle = R Int Int
A newtype declaration will be completely
On 14 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but I got stuck fixing it because the array documentation isn't there
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/libraries/haskell98/Array.html
Try the hierarchical library docs:
On 11 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, sound data is currently read into a list. I will probably
change this at some point in the future, most likely copying the lazy
bytestring implementation and using a list of CFloat arrays.
Perhaps you are looking for storablevector which is a
On 8 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Function A is a function that passes its input into B
Function B is a function that does something once.
How do I make it so function A is done multiple times without adding a
third function?
By this, do you mean that you have functions f, g
f :: a
On 5 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since from my Lisp days I know that code is data, it strikes me that
one could probably somehow smuggle Haskell expressions via this route
although I am not sure this is a good way to go or even how one would
do it (to turn, say, a list of the chosen
On 30 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure. To be more specific, here's the contract I would really like.
1. You need to pass in a polymorphic function a - a, where a is, at
*most*, restricted to being an instance of Floating. This part I can
already express via rank-N types. For
24 matches
Mail list logo
