John 0.8.1 is almost due to be put out, it will be the first to be 100%
John haskell 2010 (and haskell 98) compliant and has a lot of other neat
John features over 0.8.0.
That's great ! I can't wait to put it into my toolbox. Haskell compilers
are all pieces of art, bringing beauty to our daily
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:33, Mats Rauhala mats.rauh...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't realize asking how long it's been for him, but he mentioned
about new fronts in optimizing compilers and specifically mentioned a
compiler that could compile to legible C. I've been following Haskell
only for a
On 11:57 Fri 30 Mar , Brandon Allbery wrote:
The legible C thing is probably jhc ( http://repetae.net/computer/jhc/ ).
It's GHC's *illegible* registerized C that is being phased out; the
slightly-more-legible ANSI C mode used for porting is staying, though.
Oh wow, I thought jhc was
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Mats Rauhala mats.rauh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11:57 Fri 30 Mar , Brandon Allbery wrote:
The legible C thing is probably jhc ( http://repetae.net/computer/jhc/ ).
It's GHC's *illegible* registerized C that is being phased out; the
slightly-more-legible
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:45:40 +0200, Jason Dagit dag...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, back to the original topic, some of the big items that I would
mention to your friend include:
* cabal/cabal-dev
* hackage (and some of the better known libraries,
Data.Vector/Data.Text/Data.ByteString)
* Type
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Mats Rauhala mats.rauh...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh wow, I thought jhc was discontinued, but just checked the
repositories and mailing lists and it's alive and well. No idea where I
got the idea that it was discontinued. Going a little bit on tangent
here, but if I
I don't think a list comprehension is the easiest way to do it, how
about
upperCase :: String - String
upperCase [] = []
upperCase (x:xs) = toUpper x : map toLower xs
-Ross
On Oct 7, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Steven1990 wrote:
Hi, I'm currently learning Haskell, and I've been trying to work out a
Hint: Move the boundary case outside the comprehension, and then use
the comprehension to handle the normal case.
Also, FYI, a comprehension feeds each value of the list xs into x, and
then evaluates the expression to the left of the pipe with that single
value of x.
Cheers,
Greg
On
2009/10/7 Steven1990 stevenyoung1...@msn.com:
Hi, I'm currently learning Haskell, and I've been trying to work out a
function for the following problem for a couple of days now.
I want to use a list comprehension method to change the first letter of a
string to upper case, and the rest of
not...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] New to Haskell - List Comprehension Question
To: Steven1990 stevenyoung1...@msn.com
Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2009, 5:20 PM
2009/10/7 Steven1990 stevenyoung1...@msn.com:
Hi, I'm currently learning Haskell, and I've been trying
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:58:00PM +0300, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
I just want the sistem to be able to print one of these expressions !
Its this too much to ask ?
Yes, 'cause it means you want to embed almost all source code into the
compiled program.
So ?
So, I don't know any
On Dec 19, 2007, at 6:25 PM, John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:58:00PM +0300, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
I just want the sistem to be able to print one of these
expressions !
Its this too much to ask ?
Yes, 'cause it means you want to embed almost all source code
into the
On Dec 20, 2007 1:23 AM, Jake McArthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007, at 6:25 PM, John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 01:58:00PM +0300, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote:
I just want the sistem to be able to print one of these
expressions !
Its this too much to ask ?
Yes,
Hallo,
On Dec 19, 2007 9:25 PM, John Meacham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, it is a pretty fundamental feature of the lisp-derived
languages that they can self modify their own source, and hence keep
their own source representation all the way through runtime.
This is not actually
On Dec 18, 2007 7:31 AM, Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is some strange example:
module Hugs where
aa::Int
aa=7
cc:: (Int-Int)-(Int-Int-Int)-Int-(Int-Int)
cc a op b = \x- case x of { _ | x==aa - x+1 ; _- a x `op` b }
f::Int-Int
f(1)=1
f(2)=2
f(_)=3
g::Int-Int
What I should have been told about upfront:
- the syntax for an expression
- the syntax for a block
Don't see your point.
- the adhoc syntax rules (how to distinguish among a tuple and a
pharanthesized expression and how to find the start and end of a block for
example )
Oh, that's
Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is some strange example:
module Hugs where
aa::Int
aa=7
Small note, it's common to use spaces around the :: and = I've
never really noticed before.
cc :: (Int-Int) - (Int-Int-Int) - Int - (Int-Int)
cc a op b = \x- case x of { _ | x==aa -
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:29:43 +0200, Miguel Mitrofanov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I should have been told about upfront:
- the syntax for an expression
- the syntax for a block
Don't see your point.
The point is the syntax is introduced as transformation of layout form to
non layout
Hi Cristian,
On Dec 18, 2007 10:53 AM, Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- the lambda expressions can be written (input) but cannot be printed
(output)
Yes, since two different lambda expressions can denote the same function.
I just want the sistem to be able to print one of these
Cristian Baboi wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:29:43 +0200, Miguel Mitrofanov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I should have been told about upfront:
- the syntax for an expression
- the syntax for a block
Don't see your point.
The point is the syntax is introduced as transformation of layout
- the syntax for an expression
- the syntax for a block
Don't see your point.
The point is the syntax is introduced as transformation of layout form to
non layout form.
As a user, I just want to be able to spot the basic components of a source
file without thinking about
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:25:18 +0200, Miguel Mitrofanov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- the syntax for an expression
- the syntax for a block
Don't see your point.
The point is the syntax is introduced as transformation of layout form
to
non layout form.
As a user, I just want to be able to
Thank you very much!
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:17:54 +0200, Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Cristian Baboi wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:29:43 +0200, Miguel Mitrofanov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- what guarantees are made by the LANGUAGE that an IO action (such
as do
putStrLn Hello
As a user, I just want to be able to spot the basic components of a
source
file without thinking about transformation rules.
Well, most users are.
Are what ?
Sorry if I've confused you. English isn't my native language. Are able, of
course.
Have you asked them all ?
If you're
Cristian Baboi wrote:
What guarantees that by running the main, the string Hello world
will be printed exactly twice ?
The semantics of IO, and the guarantees of the runtime.
IO specifies that () means compose two actions to make a larger
action which does the first actions, then the
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 12:53 +0200, Cristian Baboi wrote:
The semantics of IO, and the guarantees of the runtime.
IO specifies that () means compose two actions to make a larger
action which does the first actions, then the second action.
[do {a; a;} is notation for a a]
The RTS
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 01:31:59 Cristian Baboi wrote:
A few days ago, for various reasons, I've started to look at Haskell.
At first I was quite impressed, after reading some FAQ, and some tutorials.
Evrything was nice and easy ... until I've started writing some code on my
own.
What I
Cristian Baboi wrote:
Haskell strengts as I see them:
- it is lazy with class
- it is strongly typed
- it has automatic memory management
- it has a standard library
- it has a compiler
- it is available on several platforms
- it has a community
- it is free
Is there anything you would like to
Hallo,
Cristian Baboi escreveu:
From your list, I agree to add some pattern matching abilities to
mine, but that it all.
Keep using Haskell and resend your list in six months.
-alex
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Cristian Baboi wrote:
Haskell strengts as I see them:
- it is lazy with class
- it is strongly typed
- it has automatic memory management
- it has a standard library
- it has a compiler
- it is available on several platforms
- it has a community
- it is free
Is there anything you would like to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:33:55 +0200, Reinier Lamers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cristian Baboi wrote:
Haskell strengts as I see them:
- it is lazy with class
- it is strongly typed
- it has automatic memory management
- it has a standard library
- it has a compiler
- it is available on several
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Cristian Baboi wrote:
Haskell strengts as I see them:
- it is lazy with class
- it is strongly typed
- it has automatic memory management
- it has a standard library
- it has a compiler
- it is available on several platforms
- it has a community
- it is free
Is
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
Hi Cristian,
On Dec 18, 2007 10:53 AM, Cristian Baboi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- the lambda expressions can be written (input) but cannot be printed
(output)
Yes, since two different lambda expressions can denote the same function.
I
Concerning the subject: The End of WHAT?
Cristian Baboi writes:
Reinier Lamers wrote:
Cristian Baboi wrote:
Haskell strengts as I see them:
...
- it has a compiler
...
Is there anything you would like to add ?
Higher-order functions, purity, pattern-matching, no-nonsense syntax,
Hi Henning,
On Dec 18, 2007 3:53 PM, Henning Thielemann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since this was discussed already here, I summed it up in:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Show_instance_for_functions
I find the discussion under theoretical answer unsatisfying. The
property that a Show
On Dec 18, 2007 4:50 PM, Benja Fallenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further, even with extensionality, we can (with compiler support) in
principle have Show instances other than enumerating the graph.
Now that I said it, I'm starting to doubt we even need compiler
support beyond what we have
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
Hi Henning,
On Dec 18, 2007 3:53 PM, Henning Thielemann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since this was discussed already here, I summed it up in:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Show_instance_for_functions
I find the discussion under
If the semantics of a language says that a function
f is equivalent to a function g, but there is a function h such that
h(f) is not equivalent to h(g), then h cannot be a function. Therefore
that language cannot be a (purely) functional language.
That is the pure and simple reason why
Hi Henning,
On Dec 18, 2007 5:17 PM, Henning Thielemann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The mathematical definition of function I know of, says that functions
are special relations, and relations are sets of pairs. Their is nothing
about intension.
That's the standard definition in set theory, but
Hi Paul,
On Dec 18, 2007 5:18 PM, Paul Hudak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the semantics of a language says that a function f is equivalent to a
function g, but there is a function h such that h(f) is not equivalent to
h(g), then h cannot be a function.
Sure.
Therefore that language cannot
Benja Fallenstein wrote:
Not so fast :-)
Caveat one, there may be useful ways to for functions to implement
Show that don't conflict with extensionality (i.e., the property that
two functions are equal if they yield the same results for all
inputs).
Sure, and I suppose one way to do this
On Dec 18, 2007 6:01 PM, Paul Hudak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, my caveat was that the Haskell designers wanted it this way. So
you are essentially rejecting my caveat, rather than creating a new one.
:-)
I mean, I reject the answer They wanted it this way because I think
the answer should
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
Hi Henning,
On Dec 18, 2007 5:17 PM, Henning Thielemann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The mathematical definition of function I know of, says that functions
are special relations, and relations are sets of pairs. Their is nothing
about
On 18 Dec 2007, at 7:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Concerning the subject: The End of WHAT?
Cristian Baboi writes:
Reinier Lamers wrote:
Cristian Baboi wrote:
Haskell strengts as I see them:
...
- it has a compiler
...
Is there anything you would like to add ?
Higher-order functions,
Benja Fallenstein wrote:
I mean, I reject the answer "They wanted it this way" because I think
the answer should be, "They wanted it this way because They looked at
substituting equals under a lambda, and They saw it was good" ;-)
Your version of the answer is in fact correct, but is
Hi Paul,
On Dec 19, 2007 6:54 AM, Paul Hudak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your version of the answer is in fact correct, but is just an elaboration
of the original one.
So, I don't see what your point is...
Ok, sorry, I'll try again... I'm trying to say that in my opinion,
it's important to
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Rahul Naik wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to rewrite some older (2001) haskell :
myReadFile :: String - String
myReadFile f = case hugsIORun (readFile f) of
Right s - s
Left _ -
Can someone provide me with a up to date version of the above
Flavio Botelho wrote:
At many places i have put a Char type instead of an abstract one because some
funcations were not working properly before and i wanted to be able to output
things and so be able to see what was the problem.
(Haskell doesnt seem a 'magic' function to output arbitrary
48 matches
Mail list logo
