On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 12:23:36AM +0200, Hugh Perkins wrote:
Clll :-) Thanks for the link.
Er are you the Philip Armstrong I was at college with
Shhh. Don't tell everyone or they'll all want one. (iow, yes: Probably.)
Phil
--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key:
lol small world :-)
On 7/2/07, Philip Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 12:23:36AM +0200, Hugh Perkins wrote:
Clll :-) Thanks for the link.
Er are you the Philip Armstrong I was at college with
Shhh. Don't tell everyone or they'll all want one.
On 6/26/07, Udo Stenzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's another way of saying that the truly powerful features are
missing from C#...
Hi Udo,
Genuine question: please could you tell me what are the truly powerful
features of Haskell?
My own personal interest comes from a presentation by
Hello Hugh,
Sunday, July 1, 2007, 8:56:05 PM, you wrote:
Genuine question: please could you tell me what are the truly powerful
features of Haskell?
Anyway, getting back to my question, there's a whole slew of
articles around saying that no-one uses Haskell because they're too
stupid.
Ok good info :-)
btw, are you read Hoar's book Communicating Sequential Processes? i
think that his model is very FPish and reading his book should allow
to switch your look at concurrency in right direction
No, I'll check it out.
On 7/1/07, Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
Well, figured out a solution to parsing xml. It's not really pretty, but it
works.
Basically we just convert the incoming xml into a gread compatible format
then use gread :-D
If someone has a more elegant solution, please let me know.
module ParseXml
where
import IO
import Char
import
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:48:11PM +0200, Hugh Perkins wrote:
On 7/1/07, Bulat Ziganshin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw, are you read Hoar's book Communicating Sequential Processes? i
think that his model is very FPish and reading his book should allow
to switch your look at
Clll :-) Thanks for the link.
Er are you the Philip Armstrong I was at college with
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Still struggling with this. If anyone has any constructive ideas?
I guess it's not really easy otherwise someone would have come up with a
solution by now ;-)
The issue is the line in makeConstrM'' where we're trying to read (Data a =
a) from (String). read doesnt work, because read needs a
On 6/25/07, Udo Stenzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That type signature describes a function that can deliver *anything*
(that is in class Data), whatever you ask from it.
Yes, that is the goal :-)
If you do that, you wind up dragging in all the
machinery of Data.Generic
Is reflection
Hugh Perkins wrote:
Is reflection hard in Haskell? In C# its easy, and its one of the most
powerful features of C#
That's another way of saying that the truly powerful features are
missing from C#...
Yes, but I'm kindof stuck giving useful input to makeConstrM, so if
anyone has any ideas?
Hi,
Trying to write a function to deserialize a haskell type from xml.
Ideally this wont need a third DTD file, ie it will work something like
XmlSerializer.Deserialize from C#:
deserializeXml :: Data(a) = String - a
serializeXml :: Data(a) = a - String
Writing serializeXml is pretty easy:
As a side note i'd like to point out that introspectData has a problem with
constructors containing Strings because show (x::String) /= x:
data Foo = Foo { bar :: String } deriving (Typeable,Data)
introspectData (Foo quux) -- [(bar,\quux\)]
Those extras \ don't look very nice in the xml.. (the
Yes, or better:
gshow' :: Data a = a - String
gshow' t = fromMaybe (showConstr(toConstr t)) (cast t)
(which gets rid of the parentheses around numbers).
Still doesnt get a deserialize though ;-)
On 6/24/07, Andrea Vezzosi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a side note i'd like to point out that
14 matches
Mail list logo
