namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com writes:
Point is: = . $ : ! `` and meaningful whitespace are all nice
shortcuts, but also hairy confusing...
As somebody pointed out, these are rather idiomatic, and only confusing
to beginners. (I'm not sure what you refer to with whitespace, some
think
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Similarly, Parsec has some lovely external documentation (unfortunately as a
single giant HTML page), but the Haddock stuff is bare.
The last version (3.x) improves things.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Hong Yang hyang...@gmail.com wrote:
learn and use. In my humble opinion, Haskell has a lot of libraries, but
most of them offer few examples of how to use the modules. In this regards,
Perl is much much better.
The Perl call is spot on. Specially because
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:45 PM, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Hong Yang hyang...@gmail.com wrote:
learn and use. In my humble opinion, Haskell has a lot of libraries, but
most of them offer few examples of how to use the modules. In this
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM, namekuseijin namekusei...@gmail.com wrote:
I've not been following Haskell too much and am completely lost when
reading code like that. I understand (+1), : and ! but what the hell
are . and $ for?
Function composition and lowest-precedence function
On 2009-09-29 13:28 -0700 (Tue), Don Stewart wrote:
I'd welcome input on how to best present all this -- the Haskell
Platform gives us a chance to package up the docs in a better format
for consumption.
Part of the issue is that the Haskell libraries are so different in many
ways that there's
On 2009-09-30 13:45 -0300 (Wed), namekuseijin wrote:
The Perl call is spot on. Specially because Haskell has been
incorporating so much syntatic sugar that it's almost looking Perlish
noise already: [examples deleted]
No, I disagree with your particular examples; they're bog-standard
Haskell
There is a significant difference between:
* A $ function without a type system
* A statically checked $ function
* A $ keyword without static checking
Curt Sampson wrote:
On 2009-09-30 13:45 -0300 (Wed), namekuseijin wrote:
The Perl call is spot on. Specially because Haskell has been
On 2009-10-01 11:42 +1000 (Thu), Tony Morris wrote:
There is a significant difference between:
* A $ function without a type system
* A statically checked $ function
* A $ keyword without static checking
Sure, but I'm not not clear on the point you're trying to make, since we
all know
Don,
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Don Stewart d...@galois.com wrote:
brad.larsen:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Hong Yang hyang...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Maybe later on we can add an Example section to Description, Synopsis, and
Documentation sections produced by Haddock.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Hong Yang hyang...@gmail.com wrote:
Good libraries are not enough for a language to go beyond mere existence.
There must exist good documents, i.e., good tutorials, good books, and good
explanations and examples in the libraries, etc, that are easy for people to
Tom Tobin wrote:
This. As an experienced Pythonista but a beginning Haskeller, there
is *no way* I would have been able to wrap my head around the basics
of Haskell without the tutorage of Learn You A Haskell, Real World
Haskell, and various smaller tutorials scattered around the Haskell
wiki —
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Tom Tobin wrote:
This. As an experienced Pythonista but a beginning Haskeller, there
is *no way* I would have been able to wrap my head around the basics
of Haskell without the tutorage of Learn You A Haskell,
Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
how do we fix all this?
I think the key here is to reduce the cost of contribution to a minimum.
Make it as easy as possible to contribute an example, or to fill in some
missing documentation (and to find it later).
Cabal and hackage have made
korpios:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Hong Yang hyang...@gmail.com wrote:
Good libraries are not enough for a language to go beyond mere existence.
There must exist good documents, i.e., good tutorials, good books, and good
explanations and examples in the libraries, etc, that are easy
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Don Stewart d...@galois.com wrote:
korpios:
wiki — but I still find the array of libraries confusing (just what
comes with GHC — I'm not even talking about Hackage here), since the
What comes with GHC is the Haskell Platform these days.
Actually, the other
korpios:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Don Stewart d...@galois.com wrote:
korpios:
wiki — but I still find the array of libraries confusing (just what
comes with GHC — I'm not even talking about Hackage here), since the
What comes with GHC is the Haskell Platform these days.
I think a language needs the following to exist:
- a community
- good library
- a package manager
Thoughts?
--
Regards,
Casey
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
I think one must distinguish what it means for a language to exist and
be practical. Counter-example: Java fails catastrophically at all
three and it most certainly exists; boy do I know it.
Casey Hawthorne wrote:
I think a language needs the following to exist:
- a community
- good library
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:25:30 +1000, you wrote:
I think one must distinguish what it means for a language to exist and
be practical. Counter-example: Java fails catastrophically at all
three and it most certainly exists; boy do I know it.
QOTM!
Casey Hawthorne wrote:
I think a language needs
Good libraries are not enough for a language to go beyond mere existence.
There must exist good documents, i.e., good tutorials, good books, and good
explanations and examples in the libraries, etc, that are easy for people to
learn and use. In my humble opinion, Haskell has a lot of libraries,
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:50:14 -0500, you wrote:
Good libraries are not enough for a language to go beyond mere existence.
There must exist good documents, i.e., good tutorials, good books, and good
explanations and examples in the libraries, etc, that are easy for people to
learn and use. In my
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:50:14 -0500, you wrote:
Good libraries are not enough for a language to go beyond mere existence.
There must exist good documents, i.e., good tutorials, good books, and good
explanations and examples in the libraries, etc, that are easy for people to
learn and use. In my
A Cook Book is good but relies on people specifically working on it. I think
most of the package authors submit their packages because they themselves
need the modules in his real world.
I think package authors adding examples in the Descriptions section is a
good start when they submit their
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Hong Yang hyang...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Maybe later on we can add an Example section to Description, Synopsis, and
Documentation sections produced by Haddock.
Also, having a section for comments is helpful. This is the case especially
when there are several
brad.larsen:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Hong Yang hyang...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Maybe later on we can add an Example section to Description, Synopsis, and
Documentation sections produced by Haddock.
Also, having a section for comments is helpful. This is the case especially
If there's an Example section, it might actually be a good idea to
include it on the package's hackage page, too.
From a usability point of view, CPAN is much more helpful than the
relatively spartan hackage description - if you're looking for a
particular set of functionality, being able to
27 matches
Mail list logo
