On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Manuel Gómez tar...@gmail.com wrote:
* I could sacrifice relational integrity and store the expression
serialized, perhaps as an AST represented in JSON or somesuch —
although the rest of the data model is a rather traditional,
normalized relational schema,
Hi Manuel,
On 22 Jul 2013, at 21:00, Manuel Gómez wrote (with possible deletions):
Hi café,
I don’t know whether this is a good forum to ask about this —perhaps
Stack Overflow is better suited—, but since Haskell and related
languages are so finely fit for good solutions to the expression
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Torsten Grust
torsten.gr...@uni-tuebingen.de wrote:
Hi Manuel,
On 22 Jul 2013, at 21:00, Manuel Gómez wrote (with possible deletions):
Hi café,
I don’t know whether this is a good forum to ask about this —perhaps
Stack Overflow is better suited—, but since
Here is one possible approach. First, convert the propositional
formula into the conjunctive normal form (disjunctive will work just
as well). Recall, the conjunctive normal form (CNF) is
type CNF = [Clause]
type Clause = [Literal]
data Literal = Pos PropLetter | Neg PropLetter
type
Hi café,
I don’t know whether this is a good forum to ask about this —perhaps
Stack Overflow is better suited—, but since Haskell and related
languages are so finely fit for good solutions to the expression
problem, I figure this list may have a few helpful pointers regarding
this problem.
I’m
Hi,
The expression problem [1] can be described as the ability to add new
variants (either constructors or methods) to a data type without
changing the existing code. The Haskell and OO language issues are well
described at [1]
It seems that the expression problem does not exist in Maude[2].
My
Have you read Wouter Swierstra's Data Types A La Carte [1]?
Whether it uses basic and easy parts of Haskell depends on your
mindset. You need to wrap your head around the fixpoint. It requires
at least the MultiParamTypeClasses language extension.
Regards,
Roel
1 -
