Might not be exactly what you're looking for, but Control.Arrow has a rich
set of operators that can be used to combine functions.
For instance, there's an example on
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Understanding_arrows showing an addA
function that can be used to apply two functions to the
I want to know if it is possible that I use strings without .
If I type
*Preludefoo bar*
which actually I mean
*Preludefoo bar*
However I don't want to type s.
I have noticed if *bar* is predefined or it is a number, it can be used as
arguments. But can other strings be used this way? Like in
Yes, you can do that, but you probably shouldn't.
See also:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Num_instance_for_functions
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/applicative-numbers
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Christopher Howard
christopher.how...@frigidcode.com wrote:
Hi. I was just
On 01/09/13 07:02, yi lu wrote:
I want to know if it is possible that I use strings without .
If I type
*Preludefoo bar*
which actually I mean
*Preludefoo bar*
However I don't want to type s.
I have noticed if *bar* is predefined or it is a number, it can be used as
arguments. But can
* Christopher Howard christopher.how...@frigidcode.com [2013-08-31
21:01:38-0800]
Hi. I was just curious about something. In one of my math textbooks I
see expressions like this
f + g
or
(f + g)(a)
where f and g are functions. What is meant is
f(a) + g(a)
Is there a way in
To clarify in Bobs remark : while you're still learning Haskell and the
type system , things like lifted Num on functions can lead to some
potentially confusing type errors.
That said, it's absolutely doable, and can be a very nice / powerful tool
when used appropriately.
On Sunday, September 1,
On 08/31/2013 09:27 PM, Charlie Paul wrote:
I believe that this is what you want:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Num_instance_for_functions
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Christopher Howard
christopher.how...@frigidcode.com wrote:
The author seemed to be subtly mocking the idea. It
On 01/09/13 04:27, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
It doesn't have to be 1-to-1 but the features have to be expressible in
both: it's useless if we have different features with one syntax but not
the other.
I don't find that useless. Markdown does not have definition lists, but
we use a normal list
On 13-09-01 02:02 AM, yi lu wrote:
I have noticed if *bar* is predefined or it is a number, it can be used
as arguments. But can other strings be used this way? Like in bash, we
can use *ping 127.0.0.1* where *127.0.0.1* is an argument.
Does Bash have a rich type system, like Haskell?
Does
On 13-09-01 02:41 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
It's a bit like asking whether you can do addition everywhere by just
typing the numbers to each other (no cheating and defining number
literals as functions ;) ).
To your horror, common math language does some of that.
When 3 and ½ are typed
Not that I really want to encourage such a stringly typed practice, but
it wouldn't really be that much of a stretch.
* Use haskell-src-exts[0] and haskell-src-meta[1] to make a quasiquoter
that can parse Haskell syntax
* Use syb[2] or some other generics to find VarE and ConE expressions. In
Hi,
Hoogle is definitely not deprecated. The reason you can't yet search
all packages simultaneously is that it consumes too many resources -
the number of Haskell packages exploded at a time when I wasn't able
to spend enough time to allow Hoogle to keep up. It's definitely
something on the todo
Am 31.08.13 14:35, schrieb Petr Pudlák:
One solution would be to fold over a specific semigroup instead of a
recursive function:
|import Data.Semigroup
import Data.Foldable(foldMap)
import Data.Maybe(maybeToList)
data Darle a =Darle {getInit :: [a],getLast ::a }
deriving
Yes, that GHC ticket shows that this problem is well known.
Thank you.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Ben Lippmeier b...@ouroborus.net wrote:
On 30/08/2013, at 2:38 AM, Daniel Díaz Casanueva wrote:
While hacking in one of my projects, one of my modules stopped to
compile for apparently
On 01/09/13 13:59, Niklas Hambüchen wrote:
On 01/09/13 04:27, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
It doesn't have to be 1-to-1 but the features have to be expressible in
both: it's useless if we have different features with one syntax but not
the other.
I don't find that useless. Markdown does not have
Thanks!
You do a great job!
Adam Gundry wrote
Haskell doesn't allow classes to be polymorphic in the names of their
methods
Yes, still not ((
--
View this message in context:
http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Proposal-Polymorphic-typeclass-and-Records-tp5735096p5735365.html
Sent from
I think it is an old idea, but nevertheless.
Now we have next functions:
if (a :: Bool) then x else y
case b of
a1 :: Bool - x1
a2 :: Bool - x2
...
Let we have generic conditions for 'if' and 'case':
class Boolean a where
toBool :: a - Bool
instance Boolean Bool where
toBool = id
I didn't test it, but you might want to look into the 'rebindable syntax'
extension and its 'ifThenElse' feature.
Nicolas
On Sep 2, 2013 12:51 AM, Wvv vite...@rambler.ru wrote:
I think it is an old idea, but nevertheless.
Now we have next functions:
if (a :: Bool) then x else y
case b of
On 1/09/2013, at 7:06 PM, Christopher Howard wrote:
It seemed to be suggesting that a Num instance for functions would imply the
need for constant number functions, which leads to difficulties. But I don't
see why one would have to take it that far.
You *cannot* make a type an instance of
On 1/09/2013, at 6:02 PM, yi lu wrote:
I want to know if it is possible that I use strings without .
If I type
Preludefoo bar
which actually I mean
Preludefoo bar
However I don't want to type s.
I have noticed if bar is predefined or it is a number, it can be used as
arguments. But
No, but I agree that this behavior is useful and in the spirit of th-desugar. I
can add this to the next version, which should come out in a few days
(tomorrow?), because I've noticed a bug with the scoping of as-patterns in let
statements.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Richard
On Aug 31, 2013,
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
A slogan I have programmed by since I first met C and recognised
how vastly superior to PL/I it was for text manipulation _because_
it didn't have a proper string type is Strings are Wrong!.
I wonder if you notice the irony in your
On 2/09/2013, at 3:55 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
A slogan I have programmed by since I first met C and recognised
how vastly superior to PL/I it was for text manipulation _because_
it didn't have a proper string type is Strings are
23 matches
Mail list logo
