Ryan Ingram wrote:
Normally I agree with you, apfelmus, but here at least I have to differ!
/me considers map crushToPurée . filter disagrees ;)
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM, apfelmus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*HTML toString $ tag b [] [tag i [] [text ], text test]
bilt;gt;/itest/b
Andrew Coppin wrote:
apfelmus wrote:
... and a solution to a problem that you souldn't have in the first
place. I mean, if you want to construct XML or SQL statements, you ought
to use an abstract data type that ensures proper nesting etc. and not a
simple string.
Right. And if you
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 08:43:48AM +0200, apfelmus wrote:
Yes. Just an injection problem is an understatement. And its the
implementation of the abstract data type that determines how fast things
are. Who said that it may not simply be a newtyped String ?
I think the attraction to the
Normally I agree with you, apfelmus, but here at least I have to differ!
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM, apfelmus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*HTML toString $ tag b [] [tag i [] [text ], text test]
bilt;gt;/itest/b
I'd say the big problem is that your embedded language for describing
HTML is
Devin Mullins wrote:
apfelmus wrote:
Yes. Just an injection problem is an understatement. And its the
implementation of the abstract data type that determines how fast things
are. Who said that it may not simply be a newtyped String ?
I think the attraction to the SafeString example is that
*HTML toString $ tag b [] [tag i [] [text ], text test]
bilt;gt;/itest/b
I'd say the big problem is that your embedded language for describing
HTML is way more complex for a domain expert than
doc = renderHTML $(q bi#{v1}/i#{v2}/b)
where
v1 =
v2 = test
How
_Some_ newcommers flounder because they expect Haskell to be just
another VB / C++ / Java / whatever. (Do we really want to encourage
these people to be learning Haskell in the first place?) (...)
I hope so. One of my most important motivations to try
Haskell was that I thought it was
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Mauricio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
_Some_ newcommers flounder because they expect Haskell to be just another
VB / C++ / Java / whatever. (Do we really want to encourage these people to
be
Ryan Ingram wrote:
I would go further than that. To Andrew's question, I say:
Yes, we want to encourage these people to learn Haskell. We want to
smash all their expectations into tiny little pieces. We want their
brains to explode. And after that, we want to take what is left, pick
it up
On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 18:38 +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Ryan Ingram wrote:
I would go further than that. To Andrew's question, I say:
Yes, we want to encourage these people to learn Haskell. We want to
smash all their expectations into tiny little pieces. We want their
brains to
If you want to make Haskell more widely used, do pick a name for
Haskell Prime that starts with an A. I first heard of Haskell when
exploring the list of computer languages that Gedit could highlight.
Just imagine going through all those A,B,C,D,E,F,G before I came to
Haskell.
That is a simple
If you want to make Haskell more widely used, do pick a name for
Haskell Prime that starts with an A. I first heard of Haskell when
exploring the list of computer languages that Gedit could highlight.
Just imagine going through all those A,B,C,D,E,F,G before I came to
Haskell.
Those programmers
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Martin DeMello wrote:
http://blog.moertel.com/articles/2006/10/18/a-type-based-solution-to-the-strings-problem
is a brilliant example of a common workaday problem found in other
languages, and solved elegantly in Haskell
Oh, hey, that's pretty nice...
... and a
On 11 Oct 2008, at 6:34 pm, apfelmus wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Martin DeMello wrote:
http://blog.moertel.com/articles/2006/10/18/a-type-based-solution-
to-the-strings-problem
is a brilliant example of a common workaday problem found in other
languages, and solved elegantly in Haskell
On 11 Oct 2008, at 9:02 pm, Svein Ove Aas wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Iain Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Personally, I use stored procedures with a database as they
protect from sql
injection attacks (unless you write some really stupid procedures).
Isn't this what
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Iain Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I use stored procedures with a database as they protect from sql
injection attacks (unless you write some really stupid procedures).
Isn't this what parametrized queries are for?
Svein Ove Aas wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Iain Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I use stored procedures with a database as they protect from sql
injection attacks (unless you write some really stupid procedures).
Isn't this what parametrized queries are for?
apfelmus wrote:
... and a solution to a problem that you souldn't have in the first
place. I mean, if you want to construct XML or SQL statements, you ought
to use an abstract data type that ensures proper nesting etc. and not a
simple string.
Right. And if you have 25 KB of HTML data,
[4] http://www.crsr.net/Programming_Languages/SoftwareTools/ch6.html
Hi Tommy,
I had never seen this before. It nicely fills a gap, and I really like
the format and the writing. Bookmarked. Thanks!
-Simon
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
19 matches
Mail list logo
