On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 07:23:37PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
As for robust... it tiles windows. What could possibly go wrong?
I'm told that early versions of DWM had a habit of segfaulting if you
looked at them wrong. Just usual C stuff. Which in a normal setup,
will cause the rest of your
Hello Andrew,
Monday, July 16, 2007, 1:06:42 AM, you wrote:
I have a vague recollection of somebody muttering something about
ByteStrings and memory-mapped files...?
http://www.haskell.org/library/StreamsBeta.tar.gz
you can either open m/m file with openBinaryMMFile and use it to
read/write
Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
andrewcoppin:
I saw a quote somewhere round here that went like this:
Haskell isn't really suited to heavily I/O-oriented programs.
What, you mean like darcs?
...oh yeah.
Great quote! :)
TY. :-)
Be even greater if I could remember who the heck
Steve Schafer wrote:
basically everything I write programs for is mainly about I/O...
It's funny how people always seem to think that, but if you look at what
they're really doing, I/O is usually the least of their worries.
Programming GUIs is about the only reasonably common I/O-related
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:25 -0400, Steve Schafer wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:21:50 +0100, you wrote:
[quoting a generic attitude]
basically everything I write programs for is mainly about I/O...
It's funny how people always seem to think that, but if you
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 17:11 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:25 -0400, Steve Schafer wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:21:50 +0100, you wrote:
[quoting a generic attitude]
basically everything I write programs for is mainly about I/O...
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 17:11 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
I'm still really really fuzzy on why this exists...
What?
xmonad.
The reason I pointed it out is that it (a window manager) is something
one usually thinks of as being nothing but IO, yet this is not at
On Jul 15, 2007, at 14:23 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
More... featureful...?
It's a minimalistic WM. It even says so on the tin. Either it's
minimal or it isn't...
minimalistic != minimal
The disconnect here is that most people don't want a *truly* minimal
WM. They want one which stays out
On 7/15/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I have pointed out that somebody once wrote a Quake clone in
Haskell
Really? Do you have a link? This would be quite hard to do, so I'm going
to assume that someone who took the effort to do this would make an effort
to publicize
On Jul 15, 2007, at 14:34 , Hugh Perkins wrote:
On 7/15/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I have pointed out that somebody once wrote a Quake clone in
Haskell
Really? Do you have a link? This would be quite hard to do, so
I'm going to assume that someone who took the
On 15/07/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess because in most normal programming languages you can do I/O
anywhere you damn like, it doesn't occur to most programmers that it's
possible to make a seperation. (Most seem to realise that, e.g., mixing
business logic with GUI code is a
On Sunday 15 July 2007, Paul Moore wrote:
On 15/07/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess because in most normal programming languages you can do I/O
anywhere you damn like, it doesn't occur to most programmers that it's
possible to make a seperation. (Most seem to realise that,
Paul Moore wrote:
Haskell handles this with laziness. The canonical example is counting
characters in a file, where you just grab the whole file, and use
length. An imperative programmer's intuition says that this wastes
huge amounts of memory compared to reading character by character and
On Saturday 14 July 2007 05:21, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Still, while the concept is simple, it's hard to sum up in just a few
words what a monad is. (Especially given that Haskell has so many
different ones - and they seem superficially to bear no resemblence to
each other.)
Well, how about
Alexis Hazell wrote:
On Saturday 14 July 2007 05:21, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Still, while the concept is simple, it's hard to sum up in just a few
words what a monad is. (Especially given that Haskell has so many
different ones - and they seem superficially to bear no resemblence to
each
On 7/14/07, Andrew Coppin andrewcoppin wrote:
That is my recollection also. (Don't ask me *which* monads, mind you...)
In the case in point, the law breakage never the less matches
intuition; personally, I ignore the monad laws on the basis that if
you're doing something sane, the laws will
Hugh Perkins wrote:
On 7/14/07, *Andrew Coppin* andrewcoppin wrote:
That is my recollection also. (Don't ask me *which* monads, mind you...)
In the case in point, the law breakage never the less matches
intuition; personally, I ignore the monad laws on the basis that if
you're doing something
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 20:58 +0200, Hugh Perkins wrote:
On 7/14/07, Andrew Coppin andrewcoppin wrote:
That is my recollection also. (Don't ask me *which* monads, mind
you...)
In the case in point, the law breakage never the less matches
intuition; personally, I ignore the monad laws on the
Well, can you provide an example of an implementation of bind that satisfies
an intuitive definition of bind but does not satisfy the monad laws?
On 7/14/07, Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Documentation- damn well better have the monad laws. Something is not
a monad if it does not
ListT IO (http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/ListTDoneRight)
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:34 +0200, Hugh Perkins wrote:
Well, can you provide an example of an implementation of bind that
satisfies an intuitive definition of bind but does not satisfy the
monad laws?
On 7/14/07, Derek Elkins [EMAIL
Yeah, the laws confused me for a while as well. Hint to guys writing
Haskell documentation, we're not all doing CS phD you know ;-) We
just want to get things done ;-)
teachers and tutorials making a fuss about some concept is the
surest way to guarantee that learners will find that concept
Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
Ouch, I should not have brought up these monads again! I should have known
better ;-)
Mmm... ;-)
I hope the Haskell community understands that for outsiders / newbies who want to learn
or just look at Haskell and then do some Googling, all this monad talk looks
Claus Reinke wrote:
teachers and tutorials making a fuss about some concept is the surest
way to guarantee that learners will find that concept difficult
Definitely has a ring of truth to it...
the monadic interface gives you two operations, one to throw
things into a monad thing, and one to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:21:50 +0100, you wrote:
[quoting a generic attitude]
basically everything I write programs for is mainly about I/O...
It's funny how people always seem to think that, but if you look at what
they're really doing, I/O is usually the least of their worries.
Programming GUIs
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 21:25 -0400, Steve Schafer wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:21:50 +0100, you wrote:
[quoting a generic attitude]
basically everything I write programs for is mainly about I/O...
It's funny how people always seem to think that, but if you look at what
they're really
On 7/12/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Monads take a while to get used to, but they're not so scary after that...
The problem with monads is that there is a gazillion tutorials to
explain them, each with their own analogy that works well for the
author but not necessarily for you.
D.V. wrote:
On 7/12/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Monads take a while to get used to, but they're not so scary after
that...
The problem with monads is that there is a gazillion tutorials to
explain them, each with their own analogy that works well for the
author but not
Thanks for the advice. I did not really deeply investigate the monad type
classes yet...
It looks like its gonna take a long time for me to learn Haskell. I'm not
sure if my long history of imperative and object-oriented programming has
something to do with it. Reading Haskell books like SOE is
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 16:01 +0200, peterv wrote:
Thanks for the advice. I did not really deeply investigate the monad type
classes yet...
It looks like its gonna take a long time for me to learn Haskell. I'm not
sure if my long history of imperative and object-oriented programming has
29 matches
Mail list logo
