Hi Ian
Ian Lynagh:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 07:59:37PM +0200, Mads Lindstrøm wrote:
http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/syb-with-class-0.3
(hereafter know as HappS-SYB3). HappS-SYB3 is based on the SYB3 code
you mention, but the code has been changed quite a bit
I've done something similar, I think. Often, I want to output some
kind of progress indicator, just to show that the program is working.
Typically, the program works by lazily evaluating a list (lines from
an input file, say); each element of the list is wrapped with an IO
action that outputs
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
A hyperlink of the form a
href=http://.../long-research-paper.html#interesting-paragraph;
interesting bit/a is far more useful than one of the form
a href=http://.../long-research-paper.pdf;look for
section 49.7.3/a. It may not seem significant, but when
one is attempting
Peter Hercek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jon Fairbairn wrote:
A hyperlink of the form a
href=http://.../long-research-paper.html#interesting-paragraph;
interesting bit/a is far more useful than one of the form
a href=http://.../long-research-paper.pdf;look for
section 49.7.3/a. It may not
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Oct 19, 2007, at 12:11 , Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On 19/10/2007, Kalman Noel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
data ExistsNumber = forall a. Num a = Number a
I'm without a Haskell compiler, but shouldn't that be exists a.?
The problem is that exists is not
Yes, htmls are better than pdfs (more lightweight, easier to
work with if exact page layout is not important). I just wanted
to point out that it is possible to link into some particular
place of a pdf document. So the linking availability should
not be the argument by itself. I would prefer
Peter Hercek wrote:
When 'exists' is not a keyword, why 'forall' is needed at all?
Isn't everything 'forall' qualified by default?
“forall” isn't a keyword in Haskell 98. As an extension to the language,
however, it makes certain types expressible that can not be written in H98, for
example
I wrote:
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
So why not make the laziness available
also for cases where 1 - 2 == 0 does _not_ do
the right thing?
data LazyInteger = IntZero | IntSum Bool Integer LazyInteger
or
data LazyInteger = LazyInteger Bool Nat
or whatever.
Luke Palmer wrote:
data LazyInteger
On Oct 21, 2007, at 6:29 , Jon Fairbairn wrote:
No, they (or at least links to them) typically are that bad!
Mind you, as far as fragment identification is concerned, so
are a lot of html pages. But even if the links do have
fragment ids, pdfs still impose a significant overhead: I
don't want
On Oct 21, 2007, at 6:41 , Peter Hercek wrote:
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Oct 19, 2007, at 12:11 , Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On 19/10/2007, Kalman Noel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
data ExistsNumber = forall a. Num a = Number a
I'm without a Haskell compiler, but shouldn't that be
(moving to haskell-cafe)
On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 14:55 +0200, Udo Stenzel wrote:
Duncan Coutts wrote:
New tarball releases of Cabal-1.2.1, bytestring-0.9, binary-0.4.1, tar
and others (zlib, bzlib, iconv) will appear on hackage in the next few
days.
I just tried one of them, iconv. First
Hello,
On 10/19/07, Martin Sulzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
...
Like you, Iavor, I find it very hard to internalise just why (B) and (C)
are important. But I believe the paper gives examples of why they are, and
Martin is getting good at explaining it.
Hi,
I like Haskell, and use it as my main
language. However, compiling a Haskell program
usually takes a lot of memory and CPU. So I was
curious, and would like to know from computer
scholars in this list: how much of Haskell would
be possible in machines with really low CPU and
memory? Which
Maurício writes:
... compiling a Haskell program
usually takes a lot of memory and CPU. So I was
curious, and would like to know from computer
scholars in this list: how much of Haskell would
be possible in machines with really low CPU and
memory? Which features would be feasible for a
compiler
On Oct 21, 2007, at 14:40 , Maurí cio wrote:
I like Haskell, and use it as my main
language. However, compiling a Haskell program
usually takes a lot of memory and CPU. So I was
To some extent this is just a matter of Haskell not having been
around that long ago: as ghc evolves, it's been
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Maurício wrote:
Of course. But I think of somethink like a Intel 386 with 4MB
of memory.
According to The History of Haskell
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/History_of_Haskell
(early versions of) Haskell could be used on such machines.
On Oct 21, 2007, at 15:21 , Maurí cio wrote:
Of course. But I think of somethink like a Intel 386 with 4MB
of memory.
It's kinda surprising to me how many people think that just because
current/modern implementations of things use memory wastefully, this
is somehow mandatory. When
Mauricio writes:
... But I think of somethink like a Intel 386 with 4MB
of memory.
It seems you decided to ignore my message. OK.
I repeat it once more, and there will be no more.
Gofer was a perfectly genuine Haskell, it run in a 640K box,
and influenced considerably the type system of newer
On Oct 21, 2007, at 15:31 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mauricio writes:
... But I think of somethink like a Intel 386 with 4MB
of memory.
It seems you decided to ignore my message. OK.
Whoa there! Why assume malice? I got both his quoted response and
your message at about the same time,
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems you decided to ignore my message. OK.
Whoa there! Why assume malice? I got both his quoted response and your
message at about the same time,
...
Gosh, I am not assuming any malice, I am too old for that...
I could
Magnus Therning wrote:
I'll certainly try to look into all of that. However, I suspect your
suggestion doesn't scale very well. On my original code it's easy, it
was less than 10 lines, but how do I know where to start looking if it's
a program of 100 lines, or 1000 lines? The problem could
On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 17:15 -0400, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
Magnus Therning wrote:
I'll certainly try to look into all of that. However, I suspect your
suggestion doesn't scale very well. On my original code it's easy, it
was less than 10 lines, but how do I know where to start looking if
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 15:06 -0700, Dan Weston wrote:
That is a great tutorial. Thanks! But in the last two sentences of the
introduction you say:
We just need to find any program with the given type.
The existence of a program for the type will be a proof
of the corresponding
TJ:
After all, sometimes all you need to know about a list is that
all the elements support a common set of operations. If I'm
implementing a 3d renderer for example, I'd like to have
class Renderable a where
render :: a - RasterImage
scene :: Renderable a = [a]
Everyone has launched
All of Haskell was possible 20 years ago. The LML compiler (written in LML)
compiled a language similar to Haskell, the only real differences is syntax
and the type system (and monadic IO wasn't invented yet). It was a bit slow
to recompile itself, but not bad. A 16MHz 386 and 8M of memory
Hi all,
I'm beginning to get familiar with Haddock and I want to document a
library which, as usually happens, has some ADT definitions.
I'd like to document the ADTs both for the end-user (who shouldn't be
told about its internal implementation) and future developers.
Let's imagine my library
On 10/22/07, Alfonso Acosta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== Foolib.hs
-- | This is Foolib which is aimed at whatever
module Foolib (ADT) where
import ADT
===
Sorry, I meant (although my error was probably obvious)
== Foolib.hs
-- |
There's nothing wrong with Haskell types. It's the terms that make Haskell
types an inconsistent logic.
But that doesn't mean that the C-H correspondence doesn't have any insight
to offer.
-- Lennart
On 10/21/07, Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 15:06 -0700, Dan
Hello,
On 10/17/07, Lennart Augustsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check Wikipedia. Peirce law, law of excluded middle, double negation, ...
they are all equivalent and it can be instructive to see how one can derive
one from the other.
Apparently these axioms are not all equivalent (I was
Manuel M T Chakravarty writes:
Ross Paterson wrote,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:56:27AM +1000, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Lennart Augustsson wrote,
And Haskell embedded a logical programming language on accident.
Well, we are just trying to fix that :)
Since types are
Hi All,
Here are my responses to the recent messages, starting with some
summary comments:
- I agree with Martin that the condition I posted a few days ago is
equivalent to the *refined* weak coverage condition in your
paper. The refined tag here is important---I missed it the
first time
It seems you decided to ignore my message. OK.
Whoa there! Why assume malice? I got both his
quoted response and your message at about the
same time (...)
(...) *dismisses* Gofer, as something so old
that it couldn't be possibly related to modern
languages. Mind you, Mark Jones did it
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 01:12 +0100, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
There's nothing wrong with Haskell types. It's the terms that make
Haskell types an inconsistent logic.
Logics are what are consistent or not, so saying the logic Haskell's
type system corresponds to is inconsistent is all that can
On Oct 21, 2007, at 21:31 , Maurí cio wrote:
Anyway, what I would like would be a theoretical
answer. Is there something fundamentally diferent
between a C compiler and a Haskell one that makes
the former fits into 30Kb but not the other? If
I am not sure *modern* C would have fit into 30KB.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 10:02:25PM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Oct 21, 2007, at 21:31 , Maurí cio wrote:
Anyway, what I would like would be a theoretical
answer. Is there something fundamentally diferent
between a C compiler and a Haskell one that makes
the former fits into 30Kb
Iavor Diatchki writes:
Hello,
On 10/19/07, Martin Sulzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Peyton-Jones writes:
...
Like you, Iavor, I find it very hard to internalise just why (B) and
(C) are important. But I believe the paper gives examples of why they
are, and Martin
On 10/22/07, Tim Docker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TJ:
After all, sometimes all you need to know about a list is that
all the elements support a common set of operations. If I'm
implementing a 3d renderer for example, I'd like to have
class Renderable a where
render :: a -
Mark P Jones writes:
Hi All,
Here are my responses to the recent messages, starting with some
summary comments:
- I agree with Martin that the condition I posted a few days ago is
equivalent to the *refined* weak coverage condition in your
paper. The refined tag here is
TJ:
Ah... indeed it can, in this case. It won't work if class Renderable
also has a method for saving to file, etc, I suppose, unless scene ::
[(RasterImage,IO (),...whatever other operations...)]
In this case I would generally create a record:
data Renderable = Renderable {
image ::
39 matches
Mail list logo
