Hi Thu,
You read my mind. Ok, for the details. Here are my data structur for the
differen tokens (currently not complete):
data GmlToken = IntToken Int
| RealToken Double
| BoolToken Bool
| StringToken String
| FunctionToken TokenSequence
| ArrayToken TokenSequence
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
You have written a large software system in Haskell. Wishing to
play to Haskell's strength, you have structured your system
as a series of composable layers. So you have data types
Layer1, Layer2, ...
and functions
layer2 :: Layer1 - Layer2
layer3 :: Layer2 - Layer3
Hello,
From what I see here, you can use a well-known technique call descent
recursive parser. The idee is to do exactly what you did but involving
a call to some other function which should do some kind of sub-work.
Actually, you can see the pattern already in the code you provided; for
Now that almost every syntax can be redirected to custom functions
(RebindableSyntax, OverloadedStrings), would it make sense to map 'let'
to 'fix' ? Would this open a way to implement observable sharing as
needed in EDSLs by a custom 'fix'?
___
takeC :: Int - Compoz a b - (exists c. Compoz a c)
dropC :: Int - Compoz a b - (exists c. Compoz c b)
What does 'exists' means? To create a rank-2 type can't you use:
takeC :: Int - Compoz a b - (forall c. Compoz a c)
??
2011/2/28 Heinrich Apfelmus apfel...@quantentunnel.de
Yitzchak Gale
Hello all,
I've just uploaded the 3.0.0.0 version of Hakyll [1] to Hackage [2].
This is a complete rewrite, and completely backward-incompatible with
previous versions. Sorry for that.
On the other hand, I believe almost all aspects of the library have
improved tremendously. Hakyll now uses a
On 2/28/11 2:50 AM, Niklas Broberg wrote:
Ah, I suppose that's to do with the trac server itself, that's beyond me.
Moving to café: Does anyone know what's up with trac.haskell.org not sending
out verification emails?
Having just signed up, like a few hours ago, it took a long while for
the
On 2/28/11 6:01 AM, Yves Parès wrote:
takeC :: Int - Compoz a b - (exists c. Compoz a c)
dropC :: Int - Compoz a b - (exists c. Compoz c b)
What does 'exists' means? To create a rank-2 type can't you use:
takeC :: Int - Compoz a b - (forall c. Compoz a c)
??
For any A and T,
On 2/28/11 2:43 AM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
You have written a large software system in Haskell. Wishing to
play to Haskell's strength, you have structured your system
as a series of composable layers. So you have data types
Layer1, Layer2, ...
and functions
layer2 :: Layer1 - Layer2
layer3 ::
Hi,
On 2011-February-27 Sunday 16:20:06 Edward Amsden wrote:
Secondly,
I'd like to get to a GHC session that just has, say, Prelude in scope
so I can use dynCompileExpr with show etc, but I cannot figure out
how to bring it into scope. The closest I got was to get GHC
complaining that it
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:41 PM, wren ng thornton w...@freegeek.org wrote:
On 2/28/11 2:43 AM, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
You have written a large software system in Haskell. Wishing to
play to Haskell's strength, you have structured your system
as a series of composable layers. So you have data
Yves Parès wrote:
takeC :: Int - Compoz a b - (exists c. Compoz a c)
dropC :: Int - Compoz a b - (exists c. Compoz c b)
What does 'exists' means? To create a rank-2 type can't you use:
takeC :: Int - Compoz a b - (forall c. Compoz a c)
??
Ah, (exists c. Compoz a c) means There exists a
I have been wanting to gain a better understanding of interactive
theorem proving for some time. And I've often wondered: Can theorem
proving be made into a user-friendly game that could attract mass
appeal? And if so, could a population of gamers collectively solve
interesting and relevant
On 28 February 2011 14:59, Tom Hawkins tomahawk...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been wanting to gain a better understanding of interactive
theorem proving for some time. And I've often wondered: Can theorem
proving be made into a user-friendly game that could attract mass
appeal?
No.
I'd wage
Have you tried it? It's completely addictive (and takes up a big chunk of my
free time). I'm not sure it'll appeal to everyone, but I wouldn't dismiss it
off-hand like that.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Colin Adams colinpaulad...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 28 February 2011 14:59, Tom
On 25 February 2011 19:10, Bas van Dijk v.dijk@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 February 2011 18:27, sclv s.clo...@gmail.com wrote:
Bas van Dijk-2 wrote:
I believe the OS threads are created by my levmar library. This
library uses bindings-levmar[4] which is a binding to a C library.
No I haven't. I'm not a mass-market gamer. I'm an ex-hard-core gamer.
On 28 February 2011 15:53, Daniel Peebles pumpkin...@gmail.com wrote:
Have you tried it? It's completely addictive (and takes up a big chunk of
my free time). I'm not sure it'll appeal to everyone, but I wouldn't dismiss
it
I find this fairly interesting. Once you're finished grappling with the
logical core, I wouldn't mind helping out with a web interface, time
permitting. I suspect attracting mass appeal, or getting users at all, is
helped massively by having a web interface.
Thanks for your interest. Yes, a
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 17:02, Colin Adams
colinpaulad...@googlemail.com wrote:
No I haven't. I'm not a mass-market gamer. I'm an ex-hard-core gamer.
I think that basically, it is the same psychological stuff that is
going on in the brains of (puzzle) gamers and people who interactively
proves
On 28 February 2011 17:59, Jesper Louis Andersen
jesper.louis.ander...@gmail.com wrote:
Many normal puzzle games fit into the NP-complete class as well, so
it would look as if human beings like the challenge of trying to solve
hard problems. Theorem proving is simply yet another beast in the
I'm not particularly familiar with the codebase of either PostgreSQL
or GHC, but I'd be rather surprised that porting GHC's garbage
collector to PostgreSQL would be an easy or worthwhile task. For
example, GHC's garbage collector understands the memory layout that
its data structures use,
On 28 February 2011 10:38, Henning Thielemann
lemm...@henning-thielemann.de wrote:
Now that almost every syntax can be redirected to custom functions
(RebindableSyntax, OverloadedStrings), would it make sense to map 'let'
to 'fix' ?
For the record: are you talking about rewriting:
let f = e
Daryoush Mehrtash dmehrt...@gmail.com wrote in haskell-cafe:
I am confused about this comment:
Mostly we preferred (as do the domain experts we target) to write
probabilistic models in direct style rather than monadic
In the haskell implementation of the lawn model there are two different
I see the problem now. But I am confused as to why there are no Bool class
(like Num, Fractional...) in Haskell. If I had such a class then the
problem is solved, (by making the pm a an instance of it) right? Or are
there still more issues that I am not seeing?
thanks,
daryoush
On Mon, Feb
Daryoush Mehrtash dmehrt...@gmail.com wrote in article
AANLkTim0LTOviud2fyzU7NAsraQMuCKa=qyfroxn8...@mail.gmail.com in
gmane.comp.lang.haskell.cafe:
I see the problem now. But I am confused as to why there are no Bool class
(like Num, Fractional...) in Haskell. If I had such a class then
That's doing what I want, but I'm not sure why you passed
[(mkModule (stringToPackageId base) (mkModuleName Prelude), Nothing) ]
to setContext. I found that
[mkModule (stringToPackageId base) (mkModuleName Prelude)]
matches the type expected by setContext. Perhaps we are using
different api
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:58:58 +
Felipe Almeida Lessa felipe.le...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 6:48 AM, by way of bri...@aracnet.com
bri...@aracnet.com wrote:
the binding-DSL examples do NOT use the above PRAGMA anywhere in the
code.
Probably they have
Extensions:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Tom Hawkins tomahawk...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been wanting to gain a better understanding of interactive
theorem proving for some time. And I've often wondered: Can theorem
proving be made into a user-friendly game that could attract mass
appeal? And if so,
But what I miss when using these proof assistants, and what I have my
eyes on, is a way to Search ALL The Theorems. In current proof
assistants, developments are still distributed in packages -- and a
particular development might have already proved a very useful lemma
that wasn't the main
29 matches
Mail list logo
