Alexander Solla wrote:
And denotational semantics is not just nice. It is useful. It's the best
way to understand why the program we just wrote doesn't terminate.
Denotational semantics is unrealistic. It is a Platonic model of
constructive computation. Alan Turing introduced the notion of
Daniel Waterworth da.waterwo...@gmail.com wrote:
I made this simple state machine combinator library today. I think it
works as a simple example of a good use for GADTs.
https://gist.github.com/1507107
Aren't your examples all special cases of the generic automaton arrow?
There are two ways
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Robert Clausecker fuz...@gmail.com wrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff would you add to your language, what stuff
would you
2011/12/22 Gábor Lehel illiss...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Robert Clausecker fuz...@gmail.com
wrote:
Image you would create your own language with a paradigm similar to
Haskell or have to chance to change Haskell without the need to keep any
compatibility. What stuff
Alexander Solla wrote:
I happen to only write Haskell programs that terminate. It is not that
hard. We must merely restrict ourselves to the total fragment of the
language, and there are straight-forward methods to do so.
Do (web/XML-RPC/whatever) server type programs terminate?
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Heinrich Apfelmus
apfel...@quantentunnel.de wrote:
Alexander Solla wrote:
And denotational semantics is not just nice. It is useful. It's the best
way to understand why the program we just wrote doesn't terminate.
Denotational semantics is unrealistic. It
On 22 Dec 2011, at 17:49, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
Alexander Solla wrote:
I happen to only write Haskell programs that terminate. It is not
that
hard. We must merely restrict ourselves to the total fragment of the
language, and there are straight-forward methods to do so.
Do
Отправлено с iPad
22.12.2011, в 23:56, Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org написал(а):
I'd be glad if pure meant total, but
partiality were an effect supported by the run-time system. Then we
could choose to restrict ourselves, but we wouldn't be restricted by the
language.
I second
I would have compose (probably not called '.') read the same way we read
this sentence (and unix pipes) ie left to right.
You can use from Control.Arrow for that if you want.
Erik
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On 22 Dec 2011, at 21:29, MigMit wrote:
Отправлено с iPad
22.12.2011, в 23:56, Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org
написал(а):
I'd be glad if pure meant total, but
partiality were an effect supported by the run-time system. Then we
could choose to restrict ourselves, but we
On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 01:29 +0400, MigMit wrote:
Отправлено с iPad
22.12.2011, в 23:56, Conor McBride co...@strictlypositive.org
написал(а):
I'd be glad if pure meant total, but
partiality were an effect supported by the run-time system. Then we
could choose to restrict ourselves, but
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Patrick Browne patrick.bro...@dit.iewrote:
On 21/12/11, *Richard O'Keefe * o...@cs.otago.ac.nz wrote:
So what exactly is the program supposed to do?
I am trying to see whether Haskell modules can be used for blending[1]. The
original MAUDE [2,3] program
12 matches
Mail list logo
